Responsiveness and Relationship Satisfaction in Couples Coping With Parkinson’s Disease: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parkinson's disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder which impacts the person's physical, psychological and relational well-being, and the well-being of their romantic partner, who is often in a caregiving role. People with PD may struggle to empathize with and respond to their partner's emotional states, which can hinder relationship satisfaction for both partners. Care partners, who may feel burnt out from caring for their partner's physical and cognitive needs, may be limited in their ability to be responsive to their spouse's relational needs, which can hinder satisfaction. Despite the challenges faced by couples coping with PD, little work has considered the interpersonal factors associated with relationship satisfaction for affected couples. In the current study, we investigated individual differences in the motivation to be responsive to a partner's needs (i.e., communal strength), as well as perceptions of a partner's responsiveness (i.e., the extent to which a person perceives their partner to care for, validate, and understand them). We recruited 20 couples in which one partner was diagnosed with PD and their romantic partner self-identified as a full-time caregiver, in order to examine how responsiveness is associated with both partners' relationship satisfaction. When partners with PD reported higher communal strength, they reported higher relationship satisfaction and so did their care partner. When partners with PD perceived their care partner to be more responsive, they reported higher relationship satisfaction. These findings provide some preliminary evidence for responsiveness as one interpersonal factor worthy of further consideration for helping couples cope with PD.
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 | 0.001 | 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".