Cited by 26Cancer survivorship and careNursing care and researchPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Efficacy of a dyadic intervention to improve communication between patients with cancer and their caregivers: A randomized pilot trial

Open access
Tiete, Julien, Delvaux, Nicole, Liénard, Aurore, Razavi, Darius·2021·Patient Education and Counseling

Abstract

Objective Cancer-related communication is critical for patients' and caregivers' adaptation to illness. This randomized pilot study was conducted to test the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of a specific dyadic intervention to improve communication. Methods A four weekly-session intervention was developed to reinforce cancer-related patient-caregiver communication. Patients receiving treatment for any diagnosed cancer, and their caregivers, were recruited from two oncology clinics in Belgium. Sixty-four patient-caregiver dyads were assigned randomly to intervention and waitlist groups. Cancer-related dyadic communication, dyadic coping and emotional distress were assessed at baseline and post-intervention. Results The intervention attrition rate was 6 %. Linear mixed models were performed on 60 dyads. Significant two-way group × time interaction indicated improvement in participants' cancer-related dyadic communication frequency (β = -1.30; SE = 0.31; p = .004), self-efficacy (β = -10.03; SE = 3.90; p = .011) and dyadic coping (β = -5.93; SE = 2.73; p = .046) after the intervention. Conclusion These results indicate that the brief dyadic communication intervention is feasible and acceptable, and show preliminary evidence of efficacy. Practice implications Encouraging patients and caregivers to discuss personal cancer-related concerns may improve their ability to cope with the illness together.

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.pec.2020.08.024

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

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 46 · Cited by 26

Authors
Tiete, J., Delvaux, N., Liénard, A., & Razavi, D.
Affiliations
Université Libre de Bruxelles (BE)
Corresponding author
Tiete, Julien
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-03
Volume
104
Issue
3
Pages
563-570
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3081606632
Cited by
26
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3
FWCI
1.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
the Plan Cancer, SPF Santé Publique, Sécurité de la Chaine Alimentaire et Environnement, Belgium
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
caregiver-patient communication, dyadic intervention, cancer, caregivers, dyadic coping, emotional distress, self-efficacy, feasibility and acceptability
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Belgium, Communication, Humans, Neoplasms, Pilot Projects, Caregivers

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