The Role of Attachment in Parents’ Perception of the Impact of Pediatric Cancer on Their Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Introduction: The cancer diagnosis of a child is an extremely challenging event that necessitates adjustments for parents at individual, family, and couple levels. To our knowledge, the factors that may explain parents’ relationship adjustments in the context of pediatric cancer remain under-documented.</p><p>Objectives: This dyadic study (1) described the perceived impact of pediatric cancer on parents’ relationship and (2) explored the relationship between attachment insecurities (both anxiety and avoidance) in both parents and their perception of how pediatric cancer influenced different facets of their relationship.</p><p>Method: Fifty-one mixed-sex couples whose child has received treatment for cancer (whether the treatment was ongoing or completed) within the past two years, completed online questionnaires.</p><p>Results: Path analyses, based on the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model, showed that higher attachment insecurities in mothers and fathers were associated with their own perception of a more negative impact of cancer on their relationship regarding the quality of partner support (actor effect). Surprisingly, higher attachment insecurities in mothers and fathers were also linked to their partner’s perception of a more positive impact of their child’s illness on their relationship functioning (partner effects).</p><p>Discussion and conclusion: These results suggest that attachment insecurities not always have solely negative impacts. In extreme situations, such as pediatric cancer (at least in the early years of post-diagnosis), attachment-related anxiety and avoidance of parents could protect the relationship from certain difficulties.</p>
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".