CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 10Cancer survivorship and careAttachment and Relationship DynamicsNursing care and research

Dyadic effects of perceived stress, relationship satisfaction and distress disclosure on emotional distress in colorectal cancer patients and their family caregivers: An actor-partner interdependence mediation model

Open access
Jin, Yanfei, Li, Xuying, Ma, Hongwen, Xiong, Lina, Zhao, Mengshu, Wang, Honghong·2024·Asia-Pacific Journal of Oncology Nursing
DOI 10.1016/j.apjon.2024.100580PMC PMC11440261
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: This study adopted a dyadic analysis method to examine the effect of perceived stress on emotional distress and determine whether relationship satisfaction and distress disclosure act as mediators in colorectal cancer (CRC) enterostomy patient-caregiver dyads. Methods: A total of 312 patient-caregiver dyads completed measures assessing perceived stress, relationship satisfaction, distress disclosure, and emotional distress. The data were analyzed using the actor-partner interdependence mediation model. Results: This study found that the perceived stress of patients and caregivers both had direct and indirect actor effects on emotional distress (through relationship satisfaction). Another important finding is that perceived stress had indirect actor-partner effects (through distress disclosure) on emotional distress. Conclusions: This study highlights that perceived stress, relationship satisfaction, and distress disclosure of patients and their caregivers are key factors that can be considered for improving emotional distress. It also partially confirmed the interdependence of patients with CRC and their caregivers.

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 · 10.1016/j.apjon.2024.100580

Cites

6 of 6 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?

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: 60

  1. [1]Roshandel G. Ghasemi-Kebria F. Malekzadeh R. Colorectal cancer: epidemiology, risk factors, and prevention Cancers (Basel) 16 8 2024 http://doi:10.3390/cancers16081530 PMC11049480 38672612 · DOI
  2. [2]Hashida H. Recent advances and new challenges in minimally invasive surgery and chemotherapy for colorectal cancer Front Surg 10 2024 http://doi:10.3389/fsurg.2023.1341194 PMC10797053 38249306 · DOI
  3. [3]Bailey C.R. George M.L. Colorectal cancer surgery: is further research necessary? Anaesthesia 77 7 2022 748 750 http://doi:10.1111/anae.15706 35262183 · DOI
  4. [4]Li S.Q. Zhong L.P. Zhou D.Y. Zhang X.M. Liu Y.X. Zheng B.J. Predictors of psychological distress among patients with colorectal cancer-related enterostomy: a cross-sectional study Adv Skin Wound Care 36 2 2023 85 92 http://doi:10.1097/01.ASW.0000911012.63191.4c 36662041 · DOI
  5. [5]Tang W.S.W. Chiang L.L.C. Kwang K.W. Zhang M.W.B. Prevalence of depression and its potential contributing factors in patients with enterostomy: a meta-analytical review Front Psychiatr 13 2022 http://doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.1001232 PMC9756805 36532192 · DOI
  6. [6]Jin Y. Ma H. Jiménez-Herrera M. Self-disgust and stigma both mediate the relationship between stoma acceptance and stoma care self-efficacy J Adv Nurs 76 10 2020 2547 2558 https://doi:10.1111/jan.14457 32700799 · DOI
  7. [7]Hussin N.A.M. Sabri N.S.M. A qualitative exploration of the dynamics of guilt experience in family cancer caregivers Support Care Cancer 31 12 2023 http://doi:10.1007/s00520-023-08060-3 PMC10611882 37889352 · DOI
  8. [8]Thomson M.D. Genderson M.W. Siminoff L.A. Understanding cancer caregiver burden over time: dyadic assessments of family cohesion, conflict and communication Patient Educ Counsel 105 6 2022 1545 1551 http://doi:10.1016/j.pec.2021.10.014 PMC9001744 34728096 · DOI
  9. [9]Mirsoleymani S. Matbouei M. Vasli P. Marzaleh M.A. Rohani C. The role of family caregiver's sense of coherence and family adaptation determinants in predicting distress and caregiver burden in families of cancer patients Indian J Palliat Care 27 1 2021 47 53 https://doi:10.4103/ijpc.Ijpc_112_20 34035617 PMC8121216 · DOI
  10. [10]Lin H. Lin R. Lin L. Dai X. Lin N. Associations between preparedness, perceived stress, depression, and quality of life in family caregivers of patients with a temporary enterostomy Eur J Oncol Nurs 70 2024 http://doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2024.102557 38581900 · DOI
  11. [11]Bae K.R. Yu J. Family caregivers' experiences related to fear of cancer recurrence in caring for cancer survivors Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs 23 2 2023 64 74 http://doi:10.5388/aon.2023.23.2.64 · DOI
  12. [12]Petursdottir A.B. Rayens M.K. Sigurdardottir V. Svavarsdottir E.K. Long-term effect of receiving a family strengths-oriented intervention on family cancer caregiver stress, anxiety, and depression symptoms: a longitudinal quasi-experimental study J Fam Nurs 27 2 2021 114 123 https://doi:10.1177/1074840721994332 33787415 · DOI
  13. [13]Neves M.C. Bartolo A. Prins J.B. Sales C.M.D. Monteiro S. Taking care of an adolescent and young adult cancer survivor: a systematic review of the impact of cancer on family caregivers Int J Environ Res Publ Health 20 8 2023 http://doi:10.3390/ijerph20085488 PMC10138338 37107768 · DOI
  14. [14]Guan T. Chapman M.V.V. Zerden L.d.S. Sharma A. Chen D.-G. Song L. Correlates of illness uncertainty in cancer survivors and family caregivers: a systematic review and meta-analysis Support Care Cancer 31 4 2023 http://doi:10.1007/s00520-023-07705-7 36977804 · DOI
  15. [15]Shao M. Wang X. Zhang M. Caregiver burden, mutuality, and family resilience in colorectal cancer caring: a mediating model analysis Eur J Oncol Nurs 68 2024 http://doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2023.102480 38101244 · DOI
  16. [16]McPherson C.J. Devereaux A. A dyadic examination of patients' and caregivers' attachment orientations and mutually supportive care in cancer caregiving Psycho Oncol 33 1 2024 http://doi:10.1002/pon.6256 38047747 · DOI
  17. [17]Kayser K. Acquati C. The influence of relational mutuality on dyadic coping among couples facing breast cancer J Psychosoc Oncol 37 2 2019 194 212 http://doi:10.1080/07347332.2019.1566809 30822220 · DOI
  18. [18]Jacops R. Hopkins C.S. Fasolino T. Patient-caregiver dyad: a systematic review informing a concept analysis Int J Nurs Health Care Res (Lisle). 5 2022 1298 10.29011/2688-9501.101298 · DOI
  19. [19]Mitchell H.-R. Antoni M.H. Shaffer K.M. Kim Y. Correlates of posttraumatic stress in cancer patients and their family caregivers across two years following diagnosis Psycho Oncol 32 11 2023 1736 1743 http://doi:10.1002/pon.6227 PMC12236441 37789570 · DOI
  20. [20]Chen X. Wang Z. Zhou J. The impact of self-perceived burden, caregiver burden, and dyadic coping on negative emotions in colorectal cancer patient-spousal caregiver dyads: a dyadic analysis Front Psychol 14 2023 http://doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1238924 PMC10561240 37818420 · DOI
  21. [21]Lazarus R. Folkman S. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping 1984 Springer New York, NY
  22. [22]Gu R. Chen H. Wang X. The mediating role of appraisal on health-related quality of life in adolescent and young adult cancer survivors Qual Life Res 32 4 2023 1069 1084 http://doi:10.1007/s11136-022-03269-x 36260164 · DOI
  23. [23]Kessler T.A. The role of cognitive appraisal in quality of life over time in patients with cancer Oncol Nurs Forum 47 3 2020 292 304 http://doi:10.1188/20.ONF.292-304 32301930 · DOI
  24. [24]Liu Y. Wen S.-S. Chen Y. Zheng J.-W. Xiao H.-M. Cognitive appraisal and depression in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: mediation by perceived stress and self-efficacy Support Care Cancer 31 10 2023 http://doi:10.1007/s00520-023-08075-w 37801183 · DOI
  25. [25]Qin F. Wei T. Zhao X. Relationship between family resilience and dyadic coping in colorectal cancer patients and their spouses, based on the actor-partner interdependence model Eur J Oncol Nurs 70 2024 http://doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2024.102622 38795443 · DOI
  26. [26]Zhi S. Gu W. Miao R. Associations between dyadic communication and dyadic coping of patients with cervical cancer and their spouses: a study utilizing the actor-partner interdependence model Support Care Cancer 32 2 2024 http://doi:10.1007/s00520-023-08304-2 38190000 · DOI
  27. [27]Brosseau D.C. Pelaez S. Ananng B. Korner A. Obstacles and facilitators of cancer-related dyadic efficacy experienced by couples coping with non-metastatic cancers Front Psychol 14 2023 http://doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.949443 PMC10285665 37359859 · DOI
  28. [28]Zhou J. Wang Z. Chen X. Mutual communication intervention for colorectal cancer patient-spousal caregiver dyads: a randomized controlled trial Br J Health Psychol 2024 1 22 https://doi:10.1111/bjhp.12734 38849210 · DOI
  29. [29]Chen X. Li Y. Sun H. Wang T. Xu X. Li M. Dyadic communication quality and family resilience in gynecologic cancer survivors: a study on the mediating role of perceived spousal support Support Care Cancer 31 1 2023 http://doi:10.1007/s00520-022-07492-7 36538130 · DOI
  30. [30]Siminoff L.A. Wilson-Genderson M. Barta S. Thomson M.D. Hematological cancer patient-caregiver dyadic communication: a longitudinal examination of cancer communication concordance Psycho Oncol 29 10 2020 1571 1578 http://doi:10.1002/pon.5458 PMC8474783 32627258 · DOI
  31. [31]Hendrick S.S. A generic measure of relationship satisfaction J Marital Fam Ther 50 1 1988 93 98 10.2307/352430 · DOI · Paper page
  32. [32]McKee G.B. Perrin P.B. Rodriguez Agudelo Y. Relationship satisfaction and depression after traumatic brain injury: an actor-partner interdependence model of patients and caregivers in Mexico and Colombia Am J Phys Med Rehab 99 11 2020 1032 1038 10.1097/PHM.0000000000001474 PMC7572561 32452881 · DOI
  33. [33]Mroz E.L. Poulin M.J. Grant P.C. Caregiver self-esteem as a predictor of patient relationship satisfaction: a longitudinal study J Palliat Med 21 3 2018 376 379 10.1089/jpm.2017.0231 29068755 · DOI
  34. [35]Zhou J. Chen X. Wang Z. Li Q. Couple-based communication interventions for cancer patient-spousal caregiver dyads' psychosocial adaptation to cancer: a systematic review Healthcare 11 2 2023 http://doi:10.3390/healthcare11020236 PMC9858755 36673604 · DOI
  35. [36]Hasson-Ohayon I. Goldzweig G. Braun M. Hagedoorn M. Beyond "being open about it": a systematic review on cancer related communication within couples Clin Psychol Rev 96 2022 http://doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102176 35700574 · DOI
  36. [37]Kenny D.A. Kashy D.A. Cook W.L. Dyadic Data Analysis 2006 Cambridge University Press New York, NY 443
  37. [38]Ledermann T. Macho S. Kenny D.A. Assessing mediation in dyadic data using the actor-partner interdependence model Struct Equ Model 18 4 2011 595 612 10.1080/10705511.2011.607099 · DOI
  38. [39]Cohen S. Kamarck T. Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress J Health Soc Behav 24 4 1983 385 396 https://doi:10.2307/2136404 6668417 · DOI · Paper page
  39. [41]Deeken F. Häusler A. Nordheim J. Rapp M. Knoll N. Rieckmann N. Psychometric properties of the perceived stress scale in a sample of German dementia patients and their caregivers Int Psychogeriatr 30 1 2018 39 47 https://doi:10.1017/s1041610217001387 28737120 · DOI · Paper page
  40. [43]Hendrick S.S. Dicke A. Hendrick C. The relationship assessment scale J Soc Pers Relat 15 1 1998 137 142 http://doi:10.1177/0265407598151009 · DOI
  41. [44]Maroufizadeh S. Omani-Samani R. Almasi-Hashiani A. Navid B. Sobati B. Amini P. The Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) in infertile patients: a reliability and validity study Middle East Fertil Soc J 23 4 2018 471 475 10.1016/j.mefs.2018.04.001 · DOI
  42. [45]Kahn J. Hessling R. Measuring the tendency to conceal versus disclose psychological distress J Soc Clin Psychol 20 2001 41 65 http://doi:10.1521/jscp.20.1.41.22254 · DOI
  43. [46]Kahn J.H. Hucke B.E. Bradley A.M. Glinski A.J. Malak B.L. The distress disclosure index: a research review and multitrait-multimethod examination J Counsel Psychol 59 1 2012 134 149 http://doi:10.1037/a0025716 22023329 · DOI
  44. [47]McNair D.M. Droppleman L.F. Educational and industrial testing service manual for the profile of Mood states 1971 Educational and Industrial Testing Service San Diego: CA 80 83 https://doi:10.1111/bjhp.12734 · DOI
  45. [50]Hu L.t. Bentler P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives Struct Equ Model 6 1 1999 1 55 https://doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · DOI · Paper page
  46. [53]Liu W. Lewis F.M. Oxford M. Kantrowitz-Gordon I. Common dyadic coping and its congruence in couples facing breast cancer: the impact on couples' psychological distress Psycho Oncol 33 3 2024 http://doi:10.1002/pon.6314 38459736 · DOI
  47. [54]Segrin C. Badger T.A. Sikorskii A. Longitudinal dyadic interdependence in psychological distress among Latinas with breast cancer and their caregivers Support Care Cancer 28 6 2020 2735 2743 http://doi:10.1007/s00520-019-05121-4 31707502 PMC12243493 · DOI
  48. [55]Kim Y.M. Lee J.E. Dyadic effects of psychological health on quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer and caregivers: a systematic review and meta-analysis Semin Oncol Nurs 39 5 2023 http://doi:10.1016/j.soncn.2023.151477 37495448 · DOI
  49. [56]Saimaldaher Z.H. Wazqar D.Y. Relationships between caregiving stress, mental health and physical health in family caregivers of adult patients with cancer: implications for nursing practice Scand J Caring Sci 34 4 2020 889 898 https://doi:10.1111/scs.12795 31750576 · DOI
  50. [57]Tian X. Jin Y. Chen H. Tang L. Jiménez-Herrera M.F. Relationships among social support, coping style, perceived stress, and psychological distress in Chinese lung cancer patients Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs 8 2 2021 172 179 https://doi:10.4103/apjon.apjon_59_20 33688566 PMC7934593 · DOI
  51. [58]Bybee S.G.J. Cloyes K.G. Mooney K. Supiano K.P. Baucom B.R.W. Ellington L. Posttraumatic growth and life course stress predict dyadic wellbeing among sexual and gender minority (SGM) and non-SGM couples facing cancer Psycho Oncol 31 11 2022 1860 1868 http://doi:10.1002/pon.6036 PMC10550009 36151881 · DOI
  52. [59]Cho D. Roth M. Peterson S.K. Associations between stress, health behaviors, and quality of life in young couples during the transition to survivorship: protocol for a measurement burst study JMIR Res Protoc 13 2024 http://doi:10.2196/53307 PMC11077407 38652520 · DOI
  53. [61]Du X. Wang D. Du H. Zou Q. Jin Y. The correlation between intimate relationship, self-disclosure, and adaptability among colorectal cancer enterostomy patients Medicine (Baltim) 100 19 2021 e25904 https://doi:10.1097/md.0000000000025904 PMC8133169 34106651 · DOI
  54. [62]Li L. Zhong H-y Xiao T. Association between self-disclosure and benefit finding of Chinese cancer patients caregivers: the mediation effect of coping styles Support Care Cancer 31 12 2023 http://doi:10.1007/s00520-023-08158-8 37945919 · DOI
  55. [63]Tao L. Lv J. Tan X. Hu X. Fu L. Li J. Relationships between attachment style, emotional self-disclosure, and quality of life among young breast cancer survivors: a cross-sectional study Semin Oncol Nurs 40 1 2024 http://doi:10.1016/j.soncn.2023.151526 37977973 · DOI
  56. [64]Haverfield M.C. Carrillo Y. Itliong J.N. Cultivating relationship-centered care: patient, caregiver, and provider communication preferences for and experiences with prognostic conversations Health Commun 39 6 2024 1256 1267 http://doi:10.1080/10410236.2023.2210383 37165555 · DOI
  57. [65]Lyons K.S. Lee C.S. The theory of dyadic illness management J Fam Nurs 24 1 2018 8 28 https://doi:10.1177/1074840717745669 29353528 · DOI
  58. [66]Otto A.K. Vadaparampil S.T. Heyman R.E. Ellington L. Reblin M. Spouse caregivers' identification of the patient as their primary support person is associated with better patient psychological well-being J Psychosoc Oncol 41 2 2023 137 149 http://doi:10.1080/07347332.2022.2067804 35486591 · DOI
  59. [67]Kelley H.H. Thibaut J. Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence 1978 A Wiley-Interscience publication New York, NY
  60. [68]De Vellis R.F. Scale Development: Theory and Applications 2nd ed., Vol. 26 2003 Sage Publications Thousand Oaks, CA

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jin, Y., Li, X., Ma, H., Xiong, L., Zhao, M., & Wang, H.
Affiliations
  • Nanjing Medical University (CN)
  • Central South University (CN)
  • Tianjin People's Hospital (CN)
  • First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University (CN)
Corresponding author
Jin, Yanfei
ORCID
Venue
Asia-Pacific Journal of Oncology Nursing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-10
Volume
11
Issue
10
Pages
100580
ISSN
2347-5625 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.apjon.2024.100580
PMC
PMC11440261
OpenAlex
W4402026043
Cited by
10
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 2
FWCI
1.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Asia-Pacific Journal of Oncology Nursing (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Nanchang University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
Keywords
colorectal cancer, patient-caregiver dyads, perceived stress, relationship satisfaction, distress disclosure, emotional distress, family caregivers, actor-partner interdependence mediation, dyadic analysis

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