Cited by 111Cancer survivorship and careAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFamily Support in Illness

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Functional impairment, marital quality, and patient psychological distress as predictors of psychological distress among cancer patients’ spouses

Abstract

This study investigated contextual determinants of psychological distress among 197 spouses of cancer patients. It was hypothesized that higher levels of patient functional impairment would lead to greater patient distress. Patient distress, in turn, would lead to lower spouse marital satisfaction and ultimately to higher spouse distress. Spouses completed measures of distress and marital quality at three time points. Cancer patients rated their functional impairment and psychological distress at the same time points. Results indicated that at all time points, greater patient impairment was associated with higher levels of patient distress, which, in turn, was related to lower marital satisfaction. However, marital quality was related to spouse distress at only 1 time point, but spouse distress was directly associated with patient distress at each time point. Implications for cancer patients and spouses are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0278-6133.20.6.452

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Arbuckle, 1997, AMOS users' guide (Version 3.6).
  2. 10.1037/0022-006X.55.3.347 · DOI
  3. Haddad, 1996, Psychological morbidity in the partners of cancer patients., 257
  4. Schag, 1988, Cancer rehabilitation evaluation system manual.
  5. 10.1037/0022-006X.51.5.730 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 111

Metadata

Authors
Fang, C. Y., Manne, S. L., & Pape, S. J.
Affiliations
  • Fox Chase Cancer Center (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
Venue
Health Psychology
Published
2001-11
Volume
20
Issue
6
Pages
452-457
ISSN
  • 0278-6133 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-7810
OpenAlex
W1985668906
Cited by
111
References
22
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r21ca088307-02, 1k07ca082347-01, 5k04ca065727-05, 1r29ca057379-01)
  • National Cancer Institute (R21 CA88307, R29-CA57379, K04 CA65727, K07 CA82347)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Family Support in Illness
Keywords
psychological distress, marital satisfaction, marital quality, caregiver burden
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Marriage, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Personal Satisfaction, Predictive Value of Tests, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review