Coping mediates the relationship between gratitude and sense of quality of life among cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Gratitude is widely known character strength that contributes to positive outcomes.The aim of this research was to confirm the relationship between gratitude and psychophysical, psychosocial, subjective, metaphysical, and global quality of life (QOL) among cancer patients.This relationship was supposed to be mediated by coping strategies and moderated by gender. Material and methods:The participants comprised 96 hospitalized patients during 5-7-week radiotherapy, 48 women and 48 men, with breast or prostate cancer diagnosis.The following were used/measured: dispositional gratitude questionnaire, general coping strategies and specific cancer stress coping strategies, and perceived QOL (questionnaire of sense of QOL).Structural equations and bootstrap technique were used to analyse moderated mediation.Results: Helplessness mediated the relationship between gratitude and global, psychophysical, psychosocial, and subjective QOL.Positive reinterpretation mediated the relationship between gratitude and global, psychosocial, subjective, and metaphysical QOL.Active coping mediated the relationship between gratitude and psychosocial and metaphysical QOL.The relationship between gratitude and subjective QOL was mediated by helplessness only among women. Conclusions:The results show that there is relationship between gratitude and perceived QOL among cancer patients, which is mediated by coping.Gender moderates this mediational relationship.The results show the opportunity to improve patients' perceived QOL by interventions concentrated on gratitude enhancement and coping.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".