Couplelinks online intervention for young couples facing breast cancer: A randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Young women with breast cancer and their partners are more distressed than couples who are affected later in life. While dyadic interventions in the context of cancer are promising, there are access barriers, particularly for younger couples. This study evaluated Couplelinks, a professionally facilitated, web-based program designed to help couples improve their conjoint coping. METHOD: This randomised controlled trial employed a waitlist control evaluation of the program. Outcomes included dyadic coping, relationship adjustment, depression, and anxiety. RESULTS: Seventy-five couples consented to participate and were randomised. The final analysis included 31 couples in the treatment group and 36 couples in the waitlist group. Modest improvements were found in positive dyadic coping but effects were not maintained at 3-month follow-up. No effect was seen on overall relationship adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings inform the rapidly expanding field of online programming for couples in general, and those affected by BC in particular. Intervention timing, 'dose', low overall relational distress, and the mainly enrichment rather than problem-focus of Couplelinks may help explain the lack of change on relationship adjustment.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".