Predictors of long-term distress in female partners of men diagnosed with prostate cancer
Open accessAbstract
Objective Female partners of men with prostate cancer (PCa) experience heightened psychological distress; however, long-term distress for this group is not well described. We examined partner's psychological and cancer-specific distress over 2 years and predictors of change. Methods A cohort of 427 female partners (63% response; mean age 62.6 y) of PCa survivors completed baseline (2-4 y post-PCa treatment) assessments of anxiety, depression, and cancer-specific distress and were followed up at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Caregiver burden, threat and challenge appraisal, self-efficacy, and dyadic adjustment were assessed as potential predictors of distress. Results Over time, 23% to 25% of women reported anxiety; 8% to 11% depression; 5% to 6% high cancer-specific distress. Higher caregiver burden and more threat appraisals were associated with increased distress, anxiety, depression, and cancer-specific distress over time. Higher dyadic adjustment over time and more challenge appraisals at 24 months were associated with less distress, anxiety, and depression. Increased partner self-efficacy was associated with lower distress and depression at baseline. Conclusions A substantial subgroup of partners experience ongoing anxiety, with depression less prevalent but also persistent. Caregiver burden, partner self-efficacy, threat, and challenge appraisals present as potential supportive care targets.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
10 studies emphasized the need of enhancing social support by reinforcing support networks and facilitating access to support groups and associations.
“Among the strategies described, 10 studies [28,29,31,32,36,39,41,50,54,57] emphasized the need of enhancing social support by means of reinforcing the support networks and facilitating access to support groups and associations.”
From Quality of Life in Caregivers of Cancer Patients: A Literature Review (2023) · cites this paper as [50]
Cites
Caregiver Burden: A Clinical Review
Adelman, R. D., Tmanova, L. L., Delgado, D., Dion, S., & Lachs, M. S. (2014) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2014.304 · Cited by 2,002 · see citing works
Interventions with Family Caregivers of Cancer Patients: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials
Northouse, L. L., Katapodi, M. C., Song, L., Zhang, L., & Mood, D. W. (2010) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.20081 · Cited by 857 · see citing works
Girgis, A., Lambert, S. D., McElduff, P., Bonevski, B., Lecathelinais, C., Boyes, A., & Stacey, F. (2013) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.3166 · Cited by 176 · see citing works
Psychosocial morbidity in prostate cancer: II. A comparison of patients and partners
Cliff, A. M., & Macdonagh, R. P. (2000) · BJU International · doi:10.1046/j.1464-410x.2000.00914.x · Cited by 175 · see citing works
Campbell, L. C., Keefe, F. J., Scipio, C., McKee, D. C., Edwards, C. L., Herman, S. H., Johnson, L. E., Colvin, O. M., McBride, C. M., & Donatucci, C. (2007) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.22355 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Quality of Life in Caregivers of Cancer Patients: A Literature Review
Guerra-Martín, M. D., Casado-Espinosa, M. D. R., Gavira-López, Y., Holgado-Castro, C., López-Latorre, I., & Borrallo-Riego, Á. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20021570 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
“With respect to the strategies to improve the quality of life of caregivers, different studies have pointed out the need of promoting social support, facilitating the access to support networks [28,29,31,32,36,39,41,50,54,57].”
BackgroundSystematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence of depression among caregivers of cancer patients
Pan, Y.-C., & Lin, Y.-S. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.817936 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hyde, M. K., Legg, M., Occhipinti, S., Lepore, S. J., Ugalde, A., Zajdlewicz, L., Laurie, K., Dunn, J., & Chambers, S. K.
- Affiliations
- Griffith University (AU)
- Temple University (US)
- Deakin University (AU)
- Cancer Council Queensland (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Chambers, Suzanne K.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Psycho-Oncology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-01-26
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 946-954
- ISSN
- 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1611
- OpenAlex
- W2778494336
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 1.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- figshare.com
- Locations
- Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Edith Cowan University Research Online (Edith Cowan University) (submittedVersion)
- Deakin Research Online (Deakin University) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- OPUS - Open Publications of UTS Scholars (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Health and Medical Research Council (ID496001)
- Cancer Council Queensland
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Family Support in Illness
- Keywords
- prostate cancer, female partners, caregiver burden, psychological distress, anxiety, depression, cancer-specific distress, threat appraisal, challenge appraisal, self-efficacy, dyadic adjustment, long-term outcomes, supportive care
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anxiety, Depression, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Prostatic Neoplasms, Quality of Life, Stress, Psychological, Caregivers, Spouses
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