Daily stress-influence dynamics predict relationship satisfaction in post-stroke couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Significant health events, such as a stroke, not only impact the individual themselves but also significant others, such as partners. This study examines the daily life associations between stress and relationship satisfaction in couples post-stroke, and the potential buffering effect of perceived equal relationship influence. Methods: We analyzed data from 85 Canadian couples in whom at least 1 partner experienced a stroke. Both members of the dyads provide simultaneous stress and relationship satisfaction ratings for up to 14 consecutive days. Relationship influence was measured once. We fit three nested two-level actor–partner interdependence models. Results: Elevated stress was associated with lower same-day relationship satisfaction at both within- and between-person levels. Furthermore, higher daily partner stress was associated with lower actor relationship satisfaction on the same day, over and above one’s daily stress. Finally, an equal relationship influence buffered the negative effects of partner stress on relationship satisfaction for stroke survivors. Conclusion: This study highlights the complex interplay between daily stress, relationship satisfaction, and relationship influence in couples living with the effects of a stroke. Findings underscore the importance of considering the balance of power in relationships, as stroke survivors and their partners face distinct challenges that shape their daily relational experiences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".