Dyadic concordance among prostate cancer patients and their partners and health-related quality of life: Does it matter?

SDSU/UCSD Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology, 6363 Alvarado Court, Suite 103, San Diego, CA 92120-4913, USA.
Psychology & Health (Impact Factor: 1.95). 06/2011; 26(6):651-66. DOI: 10.1080/08870441003721251
Source: PubMed


Serious and chronic illnesses occur within a family context, affecting not only the patient but also the spouse/partner, children and extended family network. Spouses/partners are likely to experience the greatest personal impact, and may influence patient adjustment. Also, the intimate relationship may be affected by the illness experience. This study examined whether dyadic concordance on the characteristics of prostate cancer (PC) was related to health-related quality of life (HRQOL), psychological distress and marital adjustment in PC patients and their female partners. Couples (N=164) completed questionnaires on the appraisals of PC, and individual and dyadic adjustment. Patient and partner PC appraisal ratings were positively correlated. There was a general pattern of patients and partners in concordant dyads, versus those in dyads in which spouses maximised or minimised PC characteristics, reporting significantly better individual HRQOL outcomes, although there were several exceptions. Patient-partner appraisal (dis)agreement generally did not significantly predict dyadic adjustment. Overall, results suggest that dyadic disagreement is associated with worse HRQOL in couples facing PC.

Download full-text


Available from: Georgia Robins Sadler, Dec 14, 2013
1 Follower
24 Reads
  • Source
    • " to illness is important in ways beyond actor and partner effects. Specifically, the discrepancy between patients' and partners' representations of illness consequences (with partners reporting more consequences) was associated with more psychological symptoms in patients. This is in accordance with previous studies in couples dealing with cancer (Merz et. al., 2011; Romero et. al., 2008). It is possible that dissimilarity in ways of understanding illness may reflect different illness-related behaviors (Benyamini et. al., 2009), which may cause patients additional psychological distress."
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim was to examine the impact of the dyadic, interaction and dissimilarity effects of the illness representations on the psychological health of recently diagnosed cancer patients and spouses in Greece. The sample consisted of 298 individuals nested in 149 couples. Effects were examined with the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. Both actor (i.e., within person) and partner (i.e., between partners) effects were detected for both patients' and spouses' psychological symptoms. The negative association of patients' psychological symptoms with their representations of illness coherence was weak at the higher and medium levels, and stronger at the lower levels of spouse corresponding representations. Patient-partner discrepancy in perceived illness consequences was associated with more psychological symptoms in patients. Adaptation to cancer is a dyadic process within the context of which patient and partner psychological well-being is affected by each other's understanding of illness. Thus, the parallel examination of the illness representations of both partners is needed from the early phases of the illness trajectory.
    Journal of Behavioral Medicine 08/2015; DOI:10.1007/s10865-015-9664-z · 3.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The findings of this review indicate that, of the three concepts, communication might be the most crucial. That better communication between couples leads to better HRQOL, less distress, and better marital role adjustment, which in turn facilitates better caregiving outcomes and health outcomes, is supported by the suggestions made by the authors included in this review (Badr et al., 2008; Badr and Taylor, 2009; Manne et al., 2010, 2012; Sterba et al., 2011; Manne et al., 2012; Boehmer and Clark, 2001a; Kershaw et al., 2008; Dorros et al., 2010; Merz et al., 2011; Langer et al., 2009; Boehmer and Clark, 2001b). It is concluded that interventions to support couples in the context of cancer should enhance the couples' communication as a vital and essential element to improving the caregiving experience and health outcomes for both partners. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose A diagnosis of cancer is the start of a journey of distress and adjustment for both the patient and his/her spouse. However, the dyadic phenomena are less conceptualised and related research is in the early stages. This review explores concepts of mutuality among spousal caregiver–cancer patient dyads and identifies directions for future research. Method A systematic search, including trawling through six electronic databases, a manual search, and an author search, was conducted to identity articles that had been published in English and Chinese from January 2000 to March 2013, using key terms related to caregiver–patients dyads in cancer care. An inductive content analysis approach was adopted to analyse and synthesise the concepts of spousal caregiver–cancer patient dyads. Results Thirty-one articles were identified. The findings are described according to Fletcher et al.'s proposals for conceptualising spousal caregiver–patient dyads. The proposed concepts of ‘communication’, ‘reciprocal influence’, and ‘caregiver–patient congruence’ have been found to be interrelated, and to contribute to the spousal caregiver–patient dyads' mutual appraisal of caregiving and role adjustment through the cancer trajectory. Conclusions The findings highlight the importance of a perspective that focuses on the nature of the relationship between couples coping with cancer and the quality of their communication with each other. It is recognised that communication may act as a fundamental element of the abovementioned three concepts. Better communication between couples would probably facilitate reciprocal influence and caregiver–patient congruence, which in turn would have a positive effect on intimacy between the couple and improve the caregiving outcomes.
    European Journal of Oncology Nursing 02/2014; 18(1):58–65. DOI:10.1016/j.ejon.2013.09.003 · 1.43 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the primary treatment for advanced prostate cancer (CaP). There is growing evidence that ADT negatively affects men's psychosocial well-being (e.g., causing sexual dysfunction, bodily feminization) and physical health (e.g., increasing the risk of osteoporosis and metabolic syndrome). Although strategies for managing the majority of side effects exist, it is not clear that patients are benefiting from this knowledge. METHODS: Seventy-nine newly prescribed ADT patients and 54 of their partners were given a checklist of various common and uncommon ADT side effects. They were asked to indicate the drug side effects that they had heard of or anticipated. RESULTS: Both patients and their partners were poorly informed about the side effects of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists used for ADT. More than 70% did not know that anemia, memory problems, loss of body hair, and depression can occur following treatment. Over 50% were unaware of significant potential side effects such as reduced muscle mass, osteoporosis, increased fracture risk, weight gain, genital shrinkage, and gynecomastia. Concurrently, more than 20% mistakenly anticipated dizziness and itching. CONCLUSION: The lack of awareness of ADT side effects may partially explain why ADT currently results in significant decreases in the quality of life of patients and their partners. Patients uninformed about side effects do not engage in behaviors to prevent or reduce the risk of adverse effects. Improved efforts to educate patients about treatment side effects and coping strategies may result in improved psychosocial and physical health for CaP patients undergoing ADT.
    Urologic Oncology 01/2012; 31(7). DOI:10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.12.015 · 2.77 Impact Factor
Show more