The impact of attachment security on death preparation in advanced cancer: The role of couple communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Attachment security protects psychological well-being in patients with advanced cancer, but its effect on death preparation in this population has not been demonstrated. We examined the relationship of attachment security to death preparation in advanced cancer and tested whether couple communication mediates this relationship and whether gender and age moderate this mediating effect, using longitudinal data from a psychotherapy trial. METHODS: = 289) completed measures of attachment security (attachment avoidance, attachment anxiety), couple communication, and death preparation (preparation for end of life, life completion) and attendant health involvement (relationship with healthcare provider). A moderated mediation model was evaluated at each time period (baseline, 3 months, and 6 months). RESULTS: Couple communication mediated the relationship of attachment security to preparation for end of life and life completion (b's = -.06 to -.10). Anxiety × Gender effects on baseline couple communication (P's = .016) indicated that women with greater attachment anxiety reported worse communication than their male counterparts. Couple-communication × Gender × Age effects on baseline preparation for end of life (P = .007-.020) suggested that women showed better preparation with better couple communication. Younger patients reported less preparation than older patients, especially with poorer communication, but their preparation increased with better communication, especially in younger men. CONCLUSIONS: Attachment security supports death preparation in advanced cancer partly through better couple communication. Couple-based psychotherapeutic interventions, especially for younger individuals and women with attachment anxiety, may facilitate constructive conversations and death preparation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".