CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16Attachment and Relationship DynamicsPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

In-home conversations of couples with advanced cancer: Support has its costs

Open access
Reblin, Maija, Otto, Amy K., Ketcher, Dana, Vadaparampil, Susan T., Ellington, Lee, Heyman, Richard E.·2020·Psycho-Oncology
DOI 10.1002/pon.5416PMC PMC8080249
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to describe the quality of naturalistic communication between patients with advanced cancer and their spouse caregivers using observational methods. We also assessed the association between patient and caregiver communication behaviors and psychological and physical health using the actor-partner interdependence model. METHODS: Data on 81 dyads were gathered as part of a prospective observational study. Patients with advanced cancer and their spouse caregivers completed demographic, physical health, and emotional well-being questionnaires. Cancer and relationship communication captured in "day-in-the-life" audio recordings were coded using Gottman's Turning System to assess the quality of bids for attention and responses. RESULTS: Bids for attention were most often informational (Low Bids) and responses were mostly positive and effortful (Turn Towards); patients and caregivers did not significantly differ in communication behavior. More effortful bids for attention (High Bids) were associated with more positive and effortful responses. Patient communication behaviors were significantly associated with caregiver emotional well-being, whereas caregiver communication behaviors were significantly associated with their own emotional well-being and patient physical health. CONCLUSIONS: While patients may benefit from caregivers' more positive and engaged communication at home, the emotional labor of focusing on and engaging the patient may take a toll on caregivers' own well-being. This work contributes to the understanding of what everyday communication looks like for patients with advanced cancer and their spouse caregivers and how this communication may impact physical and psychological health. Our findings provide a foundation to develop guidelines for psychosocial couple-based interventions.

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.5416

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • 10 studies described how the patients' disease process has affected the social interaction of caregivers, who manifest great difficulty in reconciling their role as caregivers and the development of other daily activities, highlighting deterioration of working conditions.

    “With regard to social aspects, 10 studies [24,25,27,31,32,41,49,53,54,55] described how the patients’ disease process has affected the social interaction of caregivers, who manifest a great difficulty in reconciling their role as caregivers and the development of other daily activities, highlighting the deterioration of working conditions.”

    From Quality of Life in Caregivers of Cancer Patients: A Literature Review (2023) · cites this paper as [41]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Eight studies described that care work implies a greater risk for caregivers of suffering physical morbidity with considerable wear, which increases as care burden continues over time.

    “In relation to physical problems, eight studies [25,34,37,40,41,42,43,44] described that care work implies a greater risk for caregivers of suffering physical morbidity with considerable wear, which in fact increases as the care burden continues over time.”

    From Quality of Life in Caregivers of Cancer Patients: A Literature Review (2023) · cites this paper as [41]

    The Background (page unavailable) says spouse caregivers of patients with advanced cancer are at risk of worse physical health outcomes associated with caregiving stress. It does not establish considerable physical morbidity or show that caregivers’ physical health worsens as the care burden continues over time. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • 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 [41]

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: 34

  1. [2]Jacobs JM, Shaffer KM, Nipp RD, Distress is interdependent in patients and caregivers with newly diagnosed incurable cancers. Ann Behav Med 2017. PMC5513787 28097515
  2. [3]National Academies of Sciences E, and Medicine. Families Caring for an Aging America Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2016. 10.17226/23606. 27905704 · DOI
  3. [4]Williams AL, McCorkle R. Cancer family caregivers during the palliative, hospice, and bereavement phases: a review of the descriptive psychosocial literature. Palliat Support Care 2011; 9(3): 315– 325. 21838952
  4. [5]Northouse LL, Katapodi MC, Schafenacker AM, Weiss D. The impact of caregiving on the psychological well-being of family caregivers and cancer patients. Semin Oncol Nurs 2012; 28(4): 236– 245. 23107181
  5. [6]Li Q, Loke AY. A literature review on the mutual impact of the spousal caregiver-cancer patients dyads: ‘communication’, ‘reciprocal influence’, and ‘caregiver-patient congruence’. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2014; 18 (1): 58– 65. 24100089
  6. [7]Donovan EE, LeBlanc Farris K. Interpersonal communication and coping with cancer: a multidisciplinary theoretical review of the literature. Commun Theory 2018; 29(2): 236– 256.
  7. [8]Manne S, Badr H, Zaider T, Nelson C, Kissane D. Cancer-related communication, relationship intimacy, and psychological distress among couples coping with localized prostate cancer. J Cancer Surviv 2010; 4 (1): 74– 85. 19967408 PMC2828868
  8. [9]Falconier MK, Kuhn R. Dyadic coping in couples: a conceptual integration and a review of the empirical literature. Front Psychol 2019; 10(571). PMC6443825 30971968
  9. [11]Badr H New frontiers in couple-based interventions in cancer care: refining the prescription for spousal communication. Acta Oncol 2017; 56(2): 139– 145. 27937437
  10. [13]Walczak A, Butow PN, Bu S, Clayton JM. A systematic review of evidence for end-of-life communication interventions: who do they target, how are they structured and do they work? Patient Educ Couns 2016; 99(1): 3– 16. 26404055
  11. [14]Bradbury TN, Lavner JA. How can we improve preventive and educational interventions for intimate relationships? Behav Ther 2012; 43 (1): 113– 122. 22304883
  12. [15]Luong G, Charles ST, Fingerman KL. Better with age: social relationships across adulthood. J Soc Pers Relat 2011; 28(1): 9– 23. 22389547 PMC3291125
  13. [16]Campos B, Graesch AP, Repetti R, Bradbury T, Ochs E. Opportunity for interaction? A naturalistic observation study of dual-earner families after work and school. J Fam Psychol 2009; 23(6): 798– 807. 20001138
  14. [18]Reblin M, Heyman RE, Ellington L, Baucom BRW, Georgiou PG, Vadaparampil ST. Everyday couples’ communication research: overcoming methodological barriers with technology. Patient Educ Couns 2018; 101: 551– 556. 29111310
  15. [19]Zaider TI, Kissane DW, Schofield E, Li Y, Masterson M. Cancer-related communication during sessions of family therapy at the end of life. Psychooncology 2020; 29(2): 373– 380. 31701610
  16. [20]Bakhshaie J, Bonnen M, Asper J, Sandulache V, Badr H. Emotional disclosure and cognitive processing in couples coping with head and neck cancer. J Behav Med 2019. PMC10064885 31414332
  17. [21]Robbins ML, López AM, Weihs KL, Mehl MR. Cancer conversations in context: naturalistic observation of couples coping with breast cancer. J Fam Psychol 2014; 28(3): 380– 390. 24730380 PMC4041838
  18. [22]Demiray B, Mischler M, Martin M. Reminiscence in everyday conversations: a naturalistic observation study of older adults. J Gerontol Ser B 2017; 74(5): 745– 755. 29190392
  19. [23]Kenny DA, Ledermann T. Detecting, measuring, and testing dyadic patterns in the actor-partner interdependence model. J Fam Psychol 2010; 24(3): 359– 366. 20545409
  20. [24]Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 2019; 69(1): 7– 34. 30620402
  21. [25]Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983; 67(6): 361– 370. 6880820
  22. [26]Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav 1983; 24(4): 385– 396. 6668417
  23. [27]Williamson HC, Hanna MA, Lavner JA, Bradbury TN, Karney BR. Discussion topic and observed behavior in couples’ problem-solving conversations: do problem severity and topic choice matter? J Fam Psychol 2013; 27(2): 330– 335. 23398614 PMC7671089
  24. [28]Manne SL, Siegel S, Kashy D, Heckman CJ. Cancer-specific relationship awareness, relationship communication, and intimacy among couples coping with early-stage breast cancer. J Soc Pers Relat 2014; 31(3): 314– 334. 25242854 PMC4165555
  25. [29]Reblin M, Sutton SK, Vadaparampil ST, Heyman RE, Ellington L. Behind closed doors: how advanced cancer couples communicate at home. J Psychosoc Oncol 2019; 37(2): 228– 241. 10.1080/07347332.2018.1508535. 30372376 PMC7771241 · DOI
  26. [30]Driver JLGJM. Daily marital interactions and positive affect during marital conflict among newlywed couples. Fam Process 2004; 43(3): 301– 314. 15386956
  27. [31]Manne SL, Ostroff JS, Norton TR, Fox K, Goldstein L, Grana G. Cancer-related relationship communication in couples coping with early stage breast cancer. Psychooncology 2006; 15(3): 234– 247. 15926198
  28. [32]Horn AB, Samson AC, Debrot A, Perrez M. Positive humor in couples as interpersonal emotion regulation: a dyadic study in everyday life on the mediating role of psychological intimacy. J Soc Pers Relat 2019; 36(8): 2376– 2396.
  29. [33]Robbins ML, Wright RC, María López A, Weihs K. Interpersonal positive reframing in the daily lives of couples coping with breast cancer. J Psychosoc Oncol 2019; 37(2): 160– 177. 30741121 PMC6476696
  30. [34]Perndorfer C, Soriano EC, Siegel SD, Laurenceau J-P. Everyday protective buffering predicts intimacy and fear of cancer recurrence in couples coping with early-stage breast cancer. Psychooncology 2019; 28(2): 317– 323. 30426612 PMC6815683
  31. [35]Langer SL, Brown JD, Syrjala KL. Intra- and inter-personal consequences of protective buffering among cancer patients and caregivers. Cancer 2009; 115(18 Suppl): 4311– 4325. 19731352 PMC2762643
  32. [36]Tranberg M, Andersson M, Nilbert M, Rasmussen BH. Co-afflicted but invisible: a qualitative study of perceptions among informal caregivers in cancer care. J Health Psychol 0(0): 1359105319890407. PMC8392770 31778077
  33. [37]Bultz BD, Speca M, Brasher PM, Geggie PHS, Page SA. A randomized controlled trial of a brief psychoeducational support group for partners of early stage breast cancer patients. Psychooncology 2000; 9(4): 303– 313. 10960928
  34. [38]Reblin M, Clayton MF, Xu J, Caregiver, patient, and nurse visit communication patterns in cancer home hospice. Psychooncology 2017; 26(12): 2285– 2293. 28029712 PMC5489378

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].”
    Background

Authors
Reblin, M., Otto, A. K., Ketcher, D., Vadaparampil, S. T., Ellington, L., & Heyman, R. E.
Affiliations
  • Moffitt Cancer Center (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
  • New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Reblin, Maija
ORCID
Venue
Psycho-Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-06-08
Volume
29
Issue
8
Pages
1280-1287
ISSN
  • 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1611
DOI
10.1002/pon.5416
PMC
PMC8080249
OpenAlex
W3026580379
Cited by
16
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3
FWCI
3.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • American Cancer Society (MRSG 13‐234‐01‐PCSM)
  • National Cancer Institute (5T32CA090314‐16)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
advanced cancer, spousal caregivers, couple communication, emotional labor, caregiver emotional well-being, actor-partner interdependence, dyadic communication
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Concept, Social Support, Caregivers, Cost of Illness, 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