CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3Attachment and Relationship DynamicsFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsHealth disparities and outcomes

Editorial: Individual versus Dyadic Processes: Health and Relationship Outcomes

Open access
Turliuc, Maria Nicoleta, Milek, Anne, Trillingsgaard, Tea·2021·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.714548PMC PMC8337046
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.714548

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Cancer affects not only patients but also their family caregivers, causing increased caregiving burden and reduced quality of life.

    “Importantly, the burden of cancer is not borne solely by patients but also significantly affects their crucial family members, particularly their caregivers.”

    From Support based on psychoeducation intervention to address quality of life and care burden among caregivers of patients with cancer: a randomized controlled trial (2025) · cites this paper as Turliuc et al., 2021

    In “This Special Research Topic” (page unavailable), the editorial discusses cancer’s impact on patients’ partners and identifies lay caregivers as important to patients after stem-cell transplant. This supports the broad point that cancer reaches beyond patients, but it does not establish increased caregiving burden or reduced quality of life among family caregivers. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Allen M. S. Walter E. E. (2018). Linking big five personality traits to sexuality and sexual health: a meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bull. 144, 1081– 1110. 10.1037/bul0000157 29878796 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Bloch L. Haase C. M. Levenson R. W. (2014). Emotion regulation predicts marital satisfaction: more than a wives' tale. Emotion 14, 130– 144. 10.1037/a0034272 24188061 PMC4041870 · DOI
  3. Bucher M. A. Suzuki T. Samuel D. B. (2019). A meta-analytic review of personality traits and their associations with mental health treatment outcomes. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 70, 51– 63. 10.1016/j.cpr.2019.04.002 30981042 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Buss D. M. Schmitt D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychol. Rev. 100, 204– 232. 10.1037/0033-295x.100.2.204 8483982 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Dunkel Schetter C. (2017). Moving research on health and close relationships forward-a challenge and an obligation: introduction to the special issue. Am. Psychol. 72, 511– 516. 10.1037/amp0000158 28880098 · DOI
  6. Falconier M. K. Jackson J. B. Hilpert P. Bodenmann G. (2015). Dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 42, 28– 46. 10.1016/j.cpr.2015.07.002 26295276 · DOI
  7. Farrell A. K. Stanton S. C. E. (2019). Toward a mechanistic understanding of links between close relationships and physical health. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 28, 483– 489. 10.1177/0963721419855657 · DOI
  8. Feeney B. C. Collins N. L. (2015). A new look at social support: a theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. Off. J. Soc. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Inc 19, 113– 147. 10.1177/1088868314544222 25125368 PMC5480897 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Hostinar C. E. Sullivan R. M. Gunnar M. R. (2014). Psychobiological mechanisms underlying the social buffering of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenocortical axis: a review of animal models and human studies across development. Psychol. Bull. 140, 256– 282. 10.1037/a0032671 23607429 PMC3844011 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Joel S. Eastwick P. W. Allison C. J. Arriaga X. B. Baker Z. G. Bar-Kalifa E.. (2020). Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples studies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 19061– 19071. 10.1073/pnas.1917036117 32719123 PMC7431040 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Ledermann T. Bodenmann G. Rudaz M. Bradbury T. N. (2010). Stress, communication, and marital quality in couples. Fam. Relat. 59, 195– 206. 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00595.x · DOI
  12. Malouff J. M. Schutte N. S. Thorsteinsson E. B. (2014). Trait emotional intelligence and romantic relationship satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Am. J. Fam. Ther. 42, 53– 66. 10.1080/01926187.2012.748549 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Randall A. K. Bodenmann G. (2017). Stress and its associations with relationship satisfaction. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 13, 96– 106. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.010 28813303 · DOI
  14. Sbarra D. A. Coan J. A. (2018). Relationships and health: the critical role of affective science. Emot. Rev. 10, 40– 54. 10.1177/1754073917696584 · DOI
  15. Singer S. Das-Munshi J. Brähler E. (2010). Prevalence of mental health conditions in cancer patients in acute care-a meta-analysis. Ann. Oncol. 21, 925– 930. 10.1093/annonc/mdp515 19887467 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Weidmann R. Ledermann T. Grob A. (2016). The interdependence of personality and satisfaction in couples: a review. Eur. Psychol. 21, 284– 295. 10.1027/1016-9040/a000261 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Turliuc, M. N., Milek, A., & Trillingsgaard, T.
Affiliations
  • Alexandru Ioan Cuza University (RO)
  • University of Münster (DE)
  • Aarhus University (DK)
Corresponding author
Turliuc, Maria Nicoleta
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2021-07-21
Volume
12
Pages
714548-714548
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2021.714548
PMC
PMC8337046
OpenAlex
W3186420318
Cited by
3
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
Keywords
individual processes, dyadic processes, relationship outcomes, health outcomes, interpersonal relationships

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