Do problem‐solving skills help mitigate emotional distress through perceived control and self‐efficacy in parents of children with cancer?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Parents of children with cancer face psychological challenges that can result in significant distress. It has been found that problem‐solving (PS) could mitigate emotional distress (ED) in this population, but mechanisms of this relation are poorly understood. This study aimed to assess whether there is a link between PS and ED through perceived control and self‐efficacy. Methods We included 119 parents (67 mothers, 52 fathers, including 50 couples) whose child was diagnosed with cancer. We evaluated whether PS was associated with ED through perceived control and self‐efficacy in couples of parents. Results We found no direct association between PS and ED ( β = −0.01, p = 0.92). Our results indicated a significant indirect effect between ED and PS with perceived control as the intermediary variable ( β = −0.24, p < 0.001, 95% CI [−0.41, −0.11]). However, there was no indirect association between ED and PS with self‐efficacy as the intermediary variable ( β = −0.04, p = 0.26, 95% CI [−0.11, 0.09]). The effect size was large in magnitude ( R 2 = 0.59 for ED). Conclusion The mitigating role of PS on ED is better explained by an enhanced experience of control than by improved self‐efficacy. Future interventions should directly target the action mechanism behind PS and ED in both mothers and fathers by targeting their perceived control.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it