Efficacy of a dyadic intervention to improve communication between patients with cancer and their caregivers: A randomized pilot trial
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- 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