An investigation of fear of recurrence, attachment and caregiving experiences among ovarian cancer partner‐caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is a common concern for both cancer patients and their caregivers. Attachment insecurity is an established contributor to poorer mental health, particularly as it relates to social support. This study sought to evaluate whether attachment and caregiver experiences in cancer care were predictors of FCR. Methods A cross‐sectional questionnaire study involving partner‐caregivers of patients with ovarian cancer was conducted. Correlation analyses and multiple hierarchical regressions were used to determine the roles of attachment and caregiving experiences in cancer care on FCR, including the possible moderating role of attachment on the relationship between caregiving experiences and FCR. Results Participants ( n = 82), mostly identified as white men, had post‐secondary education and incomes of over $100,000 CAD, and cared for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Forty percent of participants had clinically elevated FCR. Among the evaluated caregiving experiences in cancer care, caregiving workload ( r = 0.33; p = 0.005), needing more help from healthcare providers ( r = 0.28; p = 0.02), and lacking time for social relations because of caregiving ( r = 0.47; p < 0.001) correlated with FCR. Attachment anxiety correlated significantly with FCR ( r = 0.43; p < 0.001), but attachment avoidance did not. Attachment anxiety (Δ R 2 = 0.14; p = 0.002) and lacking time for social relations (Δ R 2 = 0.18; p < 0.001) contributed to the variance on FCR. Attachment insecurity did not moderate the relationships between caregiving experiences and FCR. Conclusions Partner‐caregiver attachment anxiety correlates with FCR; however, this does not influence FCR's relationship with poorer perceived support from cancer care institutions. Partner‐caregivers may benefit from psychotherapies for FCR and more practical support from cancer care teams.
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) | 0.001 | 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".