Obstacles and facilitators of cancer-related dyadic efficacy experienced by couples coping with non-metastatic cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Cancer-related dyadic efficacy is an individual's confidence to work together with a partner to conjointly manage the effects of cancer and its treatment. In other health contexts, higher levels of dyadic efficacy have been associated with fewer symptoms of psychological distress and higher ratings of relationship satisfaction. The aim of the current study was to explore patient and partner perspectives on what obstructs and facilitates cancer-related dyadic efficacy. Methods: = 17 participants) were patients undergoing treatment or recently completed treatment (within 6 months) for a non-metastatic cancer and their partners. To enable in-depth discussions among participants, data was collected through five focus groups. Participants described obstacles and facilitators of dyadic efficacy as dimensions of a common influence. Consistent with these descriptions, reflexive thematic analysis was used to identify influences on cancer-related dyadic efficacy and their subsequent obstructive and facilitative dimensions. Results: Four main categories of influence with the potential to obstruct or facilitate cancer-related dyadic efficacy were identified along with their subthemes: appraisals of the couple relationship (quality and togetherness), communication (pattern and interest in information), coping (strategy and evaluation), and responses to change (in tasks and roles and sex life). Eight obstructive and seven facilitative dimensions of these subthemes were described.Discussion: This first analysis of obstacles and facilitators of couples' cancer-related dyadic efficacy capitalized on the experiential expertise of individuals with cancer and their partners. These thematic results are instructive for the design of dyadic efficacy-enhancing interventions for couples coping with cancer.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".