Mapping the contributions of dyadic approaches to couples’ psychosocial adaptation to prostate cancer: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer is the second-most prevalent cancer diagnosis worldwide among males. Although prostate cancer affects the physical, sexual, and mental health of patients, the impact of prostate cancer on partners has also been increasingly recognized. Hence, taking a dyadic approach is of relevance. Moreover, there is evidence of the utility of dyadic approaches to the study of relational stress that chronic diseases such as prostate cancer can bring to couples, even though knowledge is sparse about prostate cancer. OBJECTIVES: This scoping review aimed to map existing dyadic studies on the psychosocial adaptation of couples to prostate cancer. METHODS: A systematic search of studies published from 2005 to November 2022 was conducted on electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, EBSCOHost, Scopus, and Web of Science) following PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses-Extension for Scoping Reviews). RESULTS: The review included 25 eligible studies from the initial 2514 articles retrieved. Overall, the results emphasized the interdependency between couple members and suggested how partners' adaptation influences patients' adaptation to prostate cancer and vice versa, regarding several psychosocial dimensions (eg, intimacy, quality of life). CONCLUSIONS: This work can bring awareness to health care professionals to adopt a couples approach when managing prostate cancer whenever there is a partner, due to these interdependent influences. For researchers and future studies, this work can strengthen the relevance of dyadic approaches on how couples adapt to prostate cancer and explore which other dimensions influence these complex dynamics.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".