Health anxiety and the negative interpretation of children’s bodily symptoms in mothers of cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Fear of progression (FoP) is a substantial concern for family caregivers of cancer survivors and is related to a number of adverse outcomes, including increased mental distress and worse quality of life. Previous research has revealed that health anxiety (HA) contributes to fear of relapse, but cognitive factors underlying establishing and maintaining FoP in mothers of cancer patients have not been examined. In this study, we were looking to investigate this association. METHODS: We used the computerized interpretation bias (IB) assessment to investigate the biased interpretation of ambiguous bodily information and its association with FoP through HA among 69 mothers of cancer patients and 42 mothers of healthy kids. RESULTS: Mothers of cancer patients interpreted more negatively ambiguous bodily symptoms than mothers of healthy kids. Moreover, they had higher levels of HA and FoP and lower quality of life than the healthy group. Also, among mothers of cancer patients, the relationship between negative IB and FoP is mediated by their HA. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study imply that negative IB may contribute to increased HA, which in turn contributes to higher levels of FoP among the mothers of cancer patients, which may reduce the quality of life of their children. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: From these findings, we propose that changing HA through modification of IB might lower the FoP in mothers of kids with cancer and improve the mother and child's quality of life.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".