Cited by 31Attachment and Relationship DynamicsCancer survivorship and carePatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Partner-assisted emotional disclosure for patients with GI cancer: 8-week follow-up and processes associated with change

Porter, Laura S., Keefe, Francis J., Baucom, Donald H., Hurwitz, Herbert, Moser, Barry, Patterson, Emily, Kim, Hong Jin·2012·Supportive Care in Cancer

Abstract

Purpose We recently reported that a partner-assisted emotional disclosure intervention for gastrointestinal cancer led to improvements in relationship quality and intimacy for couples in which the patient initially reported higher levels of holding back from discussing cancer-related concerns. The purposes of the present study were to examine outcomes at 8-week follow-up and process variables that may influence treatment effects. Methods One hundred thirty couples were randomly assigned to either partner-assisted emotional disclosure or an education/support control condition. Participants completed measures of relationship quality, intimacy, and psychological distress before randomization, post-treatment, and 8 weeks later. Patients in the disclosure intervention completed measures of negative affect immediately following each treatment session, and their level of expressiveness during the sessions was rated by trained observers. Data were analyzed using multilevel modeling. Results Among couples in which the patient initially reported higher levels of holding back, the disclosure intervention led to improvements in relationship quality and intimacy that were maintained at 8-weeks follow-up. High levels of patient expressiveness during the disclosure sessions were associated with improvements in relationship quality and intimacy, and high levels of patient negative affect immediately following the sessions were associated with reductions in psychological distress at the post-…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00520-011-1272-z

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Porter, L. S., Keefe, F. J., Baucom, D. H., Hurwitz, H., Moser, B., Patterson, E., & Kim, H. J.
Affiliations
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Porter, Laura S.
Venue
Supportive Care in Cancer
Published
2011-09-24
Volume
20
Issue
8
Pages
1755-1762
ISSN
  • 0941-4355 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-7339
OpenAlex
W2000965378
Cited by
31
References
6
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5
FWCI
2.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Supportive Care in Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R01CA100743)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
gastrointestinal cancer, couples, relationship quality, intimacy, psychological distress, negative affect, intervention process
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Emotions, Female, Gastrointestinal Neoplasms, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Middle Aged, Self Disclosure, Sexual Partners, Social Support, Stress, Psychological, Treatment Outcome

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