CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 71Cancer survivorship and careFamily Support in IllnessAttachment and Relationship Dynamics

Higher emotional distress in female partners of cancer patients: prevalence and patient–partner interdependencies in a 3‐year cohort

Open access
Moser, Michael T., Künzler, Alfred, Nussbeck, Fridtjof, Bargetzi, Mario, Znoj, Hans J.·2013·Psycho-Oncology
DOI 10.1002/pon.3331
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objective: Assessment and treatment of psychological distress in cancer patients was recognized as a major challenge. The role of spouses, caregivers, and significant others became of salient importance not only because of their supportive functions but also in respect to their own burden. The purpose of this study was to assess the amount of distress in a mixed sample of cancer patients and their partners and to explore the dyadic interdependence. Methods: An initial sample of 154 dyads was recruited, and distress questionnaires (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Symptom Checklist 9‐Item Short Version and 12‐Item Short Form Health Survey) were assessed over four time points. Linear mixed models and actor–partner interdependence models were applied. Results: A significant proportion of patients and their partners (up to 40%) reported high levels of anxiety, depression, psychological distress, and low quality of life over the course of the investigation. Mixed model analyses revealed that higher risks for clinical relevant anxiety and depression in couples exist for female patients and especially for female partners. Although psychological strain decreased over time, the risk for elevated distress in female partners remained. Modeling patient–partner interdependence over time stratified by patients' gender revealed specific effects: a moderate correlation between distress in patients and partners, and a transmission of distress from male patients to their female partners. Conclusions: Our findings provide empirical support for gender‐specific transmission of distress in dyads coping with cancer. This should be considered as an important starting point for planning systemic psycho‐oncological interventions and conceptualizing further research. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 · 10.1002/pon.3331

Cites

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?

  • A three-year study by Moser et al. reported distress being prevalent even after a long time, though severity may have decreased among spouses.

    “A three-year study by Moser et al. reported distress being prevalent even after a long time, though possibly the severity levels may have decreased among the spouses [14].”

    From Exploring the Unmet Needs of Cancer Caregivers in India: A Cross-Sectional Survey (2024) · cites this paper as [14]

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 44 · Cited by 71

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Manne S. Cancer in the marital context: a review of literature. Cancer Invest 1998;16:188-202.
  2. Gump BB, Kulik JA. Stress, affiliation, and emotional contagion. J Pers Soc Psychol 1997;72:305-319.
  3. Segrin C, Badger T, Dorros SM, Meek P, Lopez AM. Interdependent anxiety and psychological distress in women with breast cancer and their partners. Psycho-Oncology 2007;16(7):634-643.
  4. Segrin C, Badger T, Meek P, Lopez AM, Bonham E, Sieger A. (2005). Dyadic interdependence on affect and quality of life trajectories among women with breast cancer and their partners. J Social Pers Relat;22(5):673-689.
  5. Segrin C, Badger TA, Harrington J. Interdependent psychological quality of life in dyads adjusting to prostate cancer. Health Psychol 2011;5:1-10.
  6. Westman M, Keinan G, Roziner I, Benjamini Y. The crossover of perceived health between spouses. J Occup Health Psychol 2008;13(2): 168-180.
  7. Hatfield E, Cacioppo JT, Rapson RL. Emo- tional Contagion, Cambridge University Press: Paris, 1994.
  8. Joiner T, Katz J. Contagion of depressive symp- toms and mood: meta-analytic review and explanations from cognitive, behavioral, and interpersonal viewpoints. Clin Psychology: Sci Pract 1999;6:149-164.
  9. Knoll N, Schwarzer R, Pfüller B, Kienle R. Transmission of depressive symptoms: a study with couples undergoing assisted-reproduction treatment. Eur Psychologist 2009;14:7-17.
  10. Ey S, Compas B, Epping-Jordan, J, Worsham N. Stress responses and psychological adjust- ment in patients with cancer and their spouses. J Psychosoc Oncol 1996;5:23-29.
  11. Northouse L, Templin T, Mood D. Couples' adjustment to breast disease during the first year following diagnosis. J Behav Med 2001;24:115-136.
  12. Keller M, Heinrich G, Sellschoop A, Beutel M. Between distress and support: spouses of cancer patients. In Cancer and the Family, Baider L, Cooper CL, Kaplan De-Nour AK (eds.) Chichester Wiley, 1996; 187-223.
  13. Manne S, Badr H. Intimacy and relation- ship processes in couples' psychosocial adaptation to cancer. Cancer 2008;112: 2541-2555.
  14. Bodenmann G, Pihet S, Kayser K. The rela- tionship between dyadic coping and marital quality: a 2-year longitudinal study. J Fam Psychol 2006;20(3):485-493.
  15. Badr H, Taylor CLC. Effects of relationship maintenance on psychological distress and dy- adic adjustment among couples coping with lung cancer. Health Psychol 2008;27:616-627.
  16. Manne S, Ostroff J, Norton T, Fox K, Goldstein L, Grana G Cancer-related relationship communication in couples coping with early stage breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology 2006;15:234-247.
  17. Ko C, Malcarne V, Varni J, Roesch S, Banthia R, Greenbergs, H. et al. Problem-solving and distress in prostate cancer patients and their spousal caregivers. Support Cancer Care 2005;13:367-374.
  18. van't Spijker A, Trijsburg RW, Duivenvoorden HJ. Psychological sequelae of cancer diagnosis: a meta-analytical review of 58 studies after 1980. Psychosom Med 1997;59:280-293.
  19. Stark DP, House A. Anxiety in cancer patients. Br J Cancer 2000;83:1261-1267.
  20. Ferrell BR, Grant M, Borneman T, et al. Family caregiving in cancer pain manage- ment. J Palliat Med 1999;2:185-195.
  21. Kurtz ME, Kurtz JC, Given CW, et al. Depression and physical health among family caregivers of geriatric patients with cancer: a longitudinal view. Med Sci Monit 2004;10:447-456.
  22. Nakaya N, Saito-Nakaya K, Bidstrup PE, Dal- ton SO, Frederiksen K, Steding-Jessen M, et al. Increased risk of severe depression in male partners of women with breast cancer. Cancer 2010;116:5527-5534.
  23. Hagedoorn M, Kreicbergs U, Appel C. Coping with cancer: the perspective of patients' relatives. Acta Oncol 2011;50(2):205-211.
  24. Baider L, Bengel J. Cancer and the spouse: gender-related differences in dealing with health care and illness. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2001;40(2):115-123.
  25. Zwahlen D, Hagenbuch N, Jenewein J, Carley MI, Buchi S. Adopting a family approach to the- ory and practice: measuring distress in cancer patient-partner dyads with the distress thermom- eter. Psycho-Oncology 2011;20(4):394-403.
  26. Northouse LL, Mood D, Templin T, Mellon S, George T. Couples' Patterns of adjustment to colon cancer. Soc Sci Med 2000;50:271-284.
  27. Künzler A, Hodgkinson K, Zindel A, Bargetzi M, Znoj HJ. Who cares, who bears, who ben- efits? Female spouses vicariously carry the burden after cancer diagnosis. Psychol Health 2011;26(3):337-352.
  28. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983;67:361-70.
  29. Klaghofer R, Brähler E. Construction and test statistical evaluation of a short version of the SCL-90-R. Z Klin Psychol Psychiatr Psychother 2001;49(2):115-124.
  30. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 1996;34:220-233.
  31. Bullinger M, Kirchberger I, Ware J. The German SF-36 health survey translation and psychometric testing of a generic instrument for the assessment of health-related quality of life. J Public Health 1996;3(1):21-36.
  32. Kenny DA, Kashy DA, Cook WL. Dyadic Data Analysis, Guilford Press: New York, 2006.
  33. Cook WL, Kenny DA. The actor-partner interdependence model: a model of bidirec- tional effects in developmental studies. Int J Behav Dev 2005;29:101-109.
  34. Dorros SM, Card NA, Segrin C, Badger TA. Interdependence in women with breast cancer and their partners: an interindividual model of distress. J Consult Clin Psychol 2010;78(1): 121-125.
  35. Banthia R, Malcarne V, Varni J, Ko C, Sadler G, Greenbergs H. The effects of dyadic strength and coping styles on psycho- logical distress in couples faced with prostate cancer. J Behav Med 2003;26(1):31-50. 2701 Distress: prevalence and interdependencies in couples

Authors
Moser, M. T., Künzler, A., Nussbeck, F., Bargetzi, M., & Znoj, H. J.
Affiliations
  • Clinical Research Aargau Aarau Switzerland
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • Bielefeld University (DE)
  • Kantonsspital Aarau (CH)
Corresponding author
Künzler, Alfred
ORCID
Venue
Psycho-Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-07-03
Volume
22
Issue
12
Pages
2693-2701
ISSN
  • 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1611
DOI
10.1002/pon.3331
OpenAlex
W1914506748
Cited by
71
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3
FWCI
2.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion)
  • PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University) (submittedVersion)
  • Publikationen an der Universität Bielefeld (Universität Bielefeld) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Swiss Cancer League (NPK-01432-08-03, OCS-01741-08-2005)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Family Support in Illness
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
Keywords
cancer patients, female partners, spousal caregivers, psychological distress, anxiety, depression, quality of life, dyadic interdependence, gender differences, actor-partner interdependence
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders, Depression, Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Quality of Life, Sex Factors, Stress, Psychological, Cohort Studies, Prevalence, Linear Models, Caregivers, Spouses, Young Adult

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