What’s love got to do with it? Relationship quality appraisals and quality of life in couples facing cardiovascular disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Changes in couples’ relationship quality are common post-cardiac event but it is unclear how relationship quality is linked to patients’ and spouses’ quality of life (QoL). The purpose of the present study was to examine the association between relationship quality on QoL in patient-spouse dyads within six months of a cardiac event.Methods: Participants (N = 181 dyads; 25.9% female patients), recruited from a large cardiac hospital, completed validated questionnaires measuring demographic, relationship (Dyadic Adjustment Scale; DAS) and QoL variables (Heart-QoL & Quality of life of Cardiac Spouses Questionnaire). An Actor-Partner Interdependence Model was used to investigate actor (i.e. responses influencing their own outcome) and partner effects (responses influencing their partner’s outcome) of relationship quality and QoL.Results: Patients’ and spouses’ perceptions of relationship quality were in the satisfied range (DAS > 108; 65% of sample) and, as expected, patients reported lower general physical QoL than did their spouse (t(180) = −10.635, p < .001). Patient and spouse relationship quality appraisals were positively associated with their own physical (patient β = .25; spouse β = .05) and emotional/social (patient β = .21; spouse β = .04) QoL. No partner effects were identified.Conclusion: High quality relationship appraisals appear to matter for patients’ and spouses’ QoL after the onset of CVD.
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 | 0.003 | 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".