CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 57Nursing care and researchAttachment and Relationship DynamicsCancer survivorship and care

Communication between Advanced Cancer Patients and Their Family Caregivers: Relationship with Caregiver Burden and Preparedness for Caregiving

Open access
Otto, Amy K., Ketcher, Dana, Heyman, Richard E., Vadaparampil, Susan T., Ellington, Lee, Reblin, Maija·2021·Health Communication
DOI 10.1080/10410236.2020.1712039PMC PMC9118123
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Cancer impacts spouse caregivers, especially when couples engage in dyadic coping around the cancer. Communication is a key factor in this process. Our goals were to describe cancer-related communication between advanced cancer patients and their spouse caregivers, and to describe how dyadic communication patterns are related to caregivers' reported burden and preparedness for caregiving. Caregivers completed measures of caregiver burden and preparedness for caregiving. Then, the patient and caregiver were asked to interact with each other in two structured discussions: a neutral discussion and a problem discussion focused on cancer. Discussions were coded using the Rapid Marital Interaction Coding System (RMICS2). Caregivers reported moderate levels of preparation and burden. Greater caregiver hostility communication predicted higher levels of caregiver burden, whereas greater caregiver dysphoric affect communication predicted lower levels of caregiver burden. Whereas positivity was more common than hostility in couples' communication, patient hostility was a significant predictor of caregiver preparedness. Patient neutral constructive problem discussion was also associated with increased caregiver preparedness. Caregiver outcomes are an understudied component to dyadic cancer research. Our paper describes observational data on cancer-related communication between caregivers and advanced cancer patients and communication's influence on caregiver outcomes. This work provides the foundation for future evidence-based communication interventions that may influence both patient and caregiver outcomes.

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 · 10.1080/10410236.2020.1712039

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • En cuidadores de pacientes con cáncer avanzado, los niveles altos de carga (M = 22.23) están asociados a la comunicación hostil del paciente con el cuidador, y esta comunicación actúa como predictor de la preparación del cuidador (p = 0,046).

    “en general los participantes presentaban niveles altos de carga (M = 22.23), asociada a comunicación hostil del paciente con el cuidador, actuando a su vez como un predictor de la preparación del cuidador (p = 0,046).”

    From Sobrecarga de trabajo en cuidadores de pacientes en cuidados paliativos oncológicos: Una revisión bibliográfica (2023) · cites this paper as Otto et al., 2021

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • La discusión neutral constructiva para la resolución de problemas con el paciente se asocia a una mayor preparación del cuidador (p = 0,049).

    “La discusión neutral constructiva para la resolución de problemas con el paciente fue asociado a una mayor preparación del cuidador (p = 0,049)”

    From Sobrecarga de trabajo en cuidadores de pacientes en cuidados paliativos oncológicos: Una revisión bibliográfica (2023) · cites this paper as Otto et al., 2021

  • Los pacientes manifiestan más afecto disfórico en relación a los cuidadores (p = 0.002).

    “se observó que los pacientes manifestaron más afecto disfórico en relación a los cuidadores (p= 0.002).”

    From Sobrecarga de trabajo en cuidadores de pacientes en cuidados paliativos oncológicos: Una revisión bibliográfica (2023) · cites this paper as Otto et al., 2021

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: 46

  1. Archbold PG, Stewart BJ, Greenlick MR, & Harvath T (1990). Mutuality and preparedness as predictors of caregiver role strain. Research in Nursing & Health, 13, 375– 384. doi: 10.1002/nur.4770130605 2270302 · DOI
  2. Arndt J, Das E, Schagen SB, Reid-Arndt SA, Cameron LD, & Ahles TA (2014). Broadening the cancer and cognition landscape: The role of self-regulatory challenges. Psycho-Oncology, 23, 1– 8. doi: 10.1002/pon.3351 PMC3880400 23839818 · DOI
  3. Badr H (2017). New frontiers in couple-based interventions in cancer care: Refining the prescription for spousal communication. Acta Oncologica, 56, 139– 145. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2016.1266079 27937437 · DOI
  4. Badr H, & Acitelli LK (2017). Re-thinking dyadic coping in the context of chronic illness. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 44– 48. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.001 28813292 · DOI
  5. Braun M, Mura K, Peter-Wight M, Hornung R, & Scholz U (2010). Toward a better understanding of psychological well-being in dementia caregivers: The link between marital communication and depression. Family Process, 49, 185– 203. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01317.x 20594206 · DOI
  6. Campbell SB, Renshaw KD, & Klein SR (2017). Sex differences in associations of hostile and non-hostile criticism with relationship quality. The Journal of Psychology, 151, 416– 430. doi: 10.1080/00223980.2017.1305324 28388351 PMC8663792 · DOI
  7. Clark MS, Fitness J, & Brissette I (2001). Understanding people’s perceptions of relationships is crucial to understanding their emotional lives. In Fletcher JO & Clark MS (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 253– 278). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
  8. Clark MS, Pataki SP, & Carver VH (1996). Some thoughts and findings on self-presentation of emotions in relationships. In Fletcher GJO & Fitness J (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 247– 274). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  9. Ellington L, Clayton MF, Reblin M, Donaldson G, & Latimer S (2018). Communication among cancer patients, caregivers, and hospice nurses: Content, process and change over time. Patient Education and Counseling, 101, 414– 421. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.09.013 28964559 PMC5857410 · DOI
  10. Falconier MK, & Kuhn R (2019). Dyadic coping in couples: A conceptual integration and a review of the empirical literature. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(571). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00571 PMC6443825 30971968 · DOI
  11. Ferrell B, & Mazanec P (2009). Family caregivers. In Hurria A & Balducci L (Eds.), Geriatric oncology: Treatment, assessment, and management (pp. 135– 155). New York, NY: Springer.
  12. Fletcher BS, Miaskowski C, Given B, & Schumacher K (2012). The cancer family caregiving experience: An updated and expanded conceptual model. European Journal of Oncology Nursing, 16, 387– 398. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2011.09.001 22000812 PMC3290681 · DOI
  13. Floyd FJ, & Rogers CH (2004). Methodological guidelines for conducting observations of couples. In Kerig PK & Baucom DH (Eds.), Couple observational coding systems (pp. 27– 41). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  14. Foster DA, Caplan RD, & Howe GW (1997). Representativeness of observed couple interaction: Couples can tell, and it does make a difference. Psychological Assessment, 9, 285. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.9.3.285 · DOI
  15. Fried TR, Bradley EH, O’Leary JR, & Byers AL (2005). Unmet desire for caregiver-patient communication and increased caregiver burden. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53, 59– 65. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53011.x 15667377 · DOI
  16. Fujinami R, Sun V, Zachariah F, Uman G, Grant M, & Ferrell B (2015). Family caregivers’ distress levels related to quality of life, burden, and preparedness. Psycho-Oncology, 24, 54– 62. doi: 10.1002/pon.3562 24789500 PMC4216636 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Given BA, Given CW, & Kozachik S (2001). Family support in advanced cancer. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 51, 213– 231. doi: 10.3322/canjclin.51.4.213 11577488 · DOI
  18. Grant M, Sun V, Fujinami R, Sidhu R, Otis-Green S, Juarez G, … Ferrell B (2013). Family caregiver burden, skills preparedness, and quality of life in non-small cell lung cancer. Oncology Nursing Forum, 40, 337– 346. doi: 10.1188/13.ONF.337-346 23803267 PMC3695406 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Heinrich RL, Schag CC, & Ganz PA (1984). Living with cancer: The cancer inventory of problem situations. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 972– 980. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(198407)40:4<972::AID-JCLP2270400417>3.0.CO;2-W 6480863 · DOI
  20. Heyman RE (2001). Observation of couple conflicts: Clinical assessment applications, stubborn truths, and shaky foundations. Psychological Assessment, 13, 5– 35. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.13.1.5 11281039 PMC1435728 · DOI
  21. Heyman RE, Eddy JM, Weiss RL, & Vivian D (1995). Factor analysis of the marital interaction coding system (MICS). Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 209– 215. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.9.2.209 · DOI
  22. Kang J, Shin DW, Choi JE, Sanjo M, Yoon SJ, Kim HK, … Yoon WH (2013). Factors associated with positive consequences of serving as a family caregiver for a terminal cancer patient. Psycho-Oncology, 22, 564– 571. doi: 10.1002/pon.3033 22275212 · DOI
  23. Kent EE, Rowland JH, Northouse L, Litzelman K, Chou W-YS, Shelburne N, … Huss K (2016). Caring for caregivers and patients: Research and clinical priorities for informal cancer caregiving. Cancer, 122, 1987– 1995. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29939 26991807 PMC5597246 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Kurtz ME, Kurtz JC, Given CW, & Given B (2005). A randomized, controlled trial of a patient/caregiver symptom control intervention: Effects on depressive symptomatology of caregivers of cancer patients. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 30, 112– 122. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2005.02.008 16125026 PMC1805478 · DOI
  25. Laidsaar-Powell R, Butow P, Bu S, Dear R, Fisher A, Coll J, & Juraskova I (2016). Exploring the communication of oncologists, patients and family members in cancer consultations: Development and application of a coding system capturing family-relevant behaviours (KINcode). Psycho-Oncology, 25, 787– 794. doi: 10.1002/pon.4003 26514374 · DOI
  26. Langer SL, Rudd ME, & Syrjala KL (2007). Protective buffering and emotional desynchrony among spousal caregivers of cancer patients. Health Psychology, 26, 635– 643. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.26.5.635 17845115 · DOI
  27. Li QP, & Loke AY (2014). A literature review on the mutual impact of the spousal caregiver-cancer patients dyads: ‘Communication’, ‘reciprocal influence’, and ‘caregiver-patient congruence’. European Journal of Oncology Nursing, 18, 58– 65. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2013.09.003 24100089 · DOI
  28. Luong G, Charles ST, & Fingerman KL (2011). Better with age: Social relationships across adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 9– 23. doi: 10.1177/0265407510391362 22389547 PMC3291125 · DOI
  29. Mack JW, Weeks JC, Wright AA, Block SD, & Prigerson HG (2010). End-of-life discussions, goal attainment, and distress at the end of life: Predictors and outcomes of receipt of care consistent with preferences. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 28, 1203– 1208. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.4672 20124172 PMC2834470 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Manne SL, & Badr H (2008). Intimacy and relationship processes in couples’ psychosocial adaptation to cancer. Cancer, 112, 2541– 2555. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23450 18428202 PMC4449141 · DOI
  31. Manne SL, Badr H, Zaider T, Nelson C, & Kissane D (2010). Cancer-related communication, relationship intimacy, and psychological distress among couples coping with localized prostate cancer. Journal of Cancer Survivorship, 4, 74– 85. doi: 10.1007/s11764-009-0109-y 19967408 PMC2828868 · DOI
  32. Manne SL, Norton TR, Ostroff JS, Winkel G, Fox K, & Grana G (2007). Protective buffering and psychological distress among couples coping with breast cancer: The moderating role of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 380– 388. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.21.3.380 17874923 · DOI
  33. Manne SL, Sherman M, Ross S, Ostroff J, Heyman RE, & Fox K (2004). Couples’ support-related communication, psychological distress, and relationship satisfaction among women with early stage breast cancer. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 660– 670. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.72.4.660 15301651 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Montgomery RJV, Gonyea J, & Hooyman N (1985). Caregiving and the experience of subjective and objective burden. Family Relations, 34, 19– 26. doi: 10.2307/583753 · DOI
  35. Montgomery RJV, Stull DE, & Borgatta EF (1985). Measurement and the analysis of burden. Research on Aging, 7, 137– 152. doi: 10.1177/0164027585007001007 4059631 · DOI
  36. Reblin M, Heyman RE, Ellington L, Baucom BRW, Georgiou PG, & Vadaparampil ST (2018). Everyday couples’ communication research: Overcoming methodological barriers with technology. Patient Education and Counseling, 101, 551– 556. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.10.019 29111310 · DOI
  37. Regan TW, Lambert SD, Kelly B, Falconier M, Kissane D, & Levesque JV (2015). Couples coping with cancer: Exploration of theoretical frameworks from dyadic studies. Psycho-Oncology, 24, 1605– 1617. doi: 10.1002/pon.3854 26059915 · DOI
  38. Reis HT, & Franks P (1994). The role of intimacy and social support in health outcomes: Two processes or one? Personal Relationships, 1, 185– 197. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1994.tb00061.x · DOI
  39. Rha SY, Park Y, Song SK, Lee CE, & Lee J (2015). Caregiving burden and the quality of life of family caregivers of cancer patients: The relationship and correlates. European Journal of Oncology Nursing, 19, 376– 382. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2015.01.004 25795160 · DOI
  40. Rhee YS, Yun YH, Park S, Shin DO, Lee KM, Yoo HJ, … Kim NS (2008). Depression in family caregivers of cancer patients: The feeling of burden as a predictor of depression. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 26, 5890– 5895. doi: 10.1200/jco.2007.15.3957 19029423 · DOI
  41. Rumpold T, Schur S, Amering M, Kirchheiner K, Masel E, Watzke H, & Schrank B (2016). Informal caregivers of advanced-stage cancer patients: Every second is at risk for psychiatric morbidity. Supportive Care in Cancer, 24, 1975– 1982. doi: 10.1007/s00520-015-2987-z 26476628 · DOI
  42. Schumacher KL, Stewart BJ, & Archbold PG (2007). Mutuality and preparedness moderate the effects of caregiving demand on cancer family caregiver outcomes. Nursing Research, 56, 425– 433. doi: 10.1097/01.nnr.0000299852.75300.03 18004189 · DOI
  43. Shin DW, Cho J, Kim SY, Chung IJ, Kim SS, Yang HK, … Park J-H (2015). Discordance among patient preferences, caregiver preferences, and caregiver predictions of patient preferences regarding disclosure of terminal status and end-of-life choices. Psycho-Oncology, 24, 212– 219. doi: 10.1002/pon.3631 25099223 · DOI
  44. Teno JM, Fisher ES, Hamel MB, Coppola K, & Dawson NV (2002). Medical care inconsistent with patients’ treatment goals: Association with 1-year Medicare resource use and survival. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 50, 496– 500. doi: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50116.x 11943046 · DOI
  45. Trougakos JP, Beal DJ, Cheng BH, Hideg I, & Zweig D (2015). Too drained to help: A resource depletion perspective on daily interpersonal citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 227– 236. doi: 10.1037/a0038082 25314365 · DOI
  46. Van Ryn M, Sanders S, Kahn K, Van Houtven C, Griffin JM, Martin M, … Rowland J (2011). Objective burden, resources, and other stressors among informal cancer caregivers: A hidden quality issue? Psycho-Oncology, 20, 44– 52. doi: 10.1002/pon.1703 20201115 PMC4479404 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Otto, A. K., Ketcher, D., Heyman, R. E., Vadaparampil, S. T., Ellington, L., & Reblin, M.
Affiliations
  • Moffitt Cancer Center (US)
  • New York University (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Reblin, Maija
ORCID
Venue
Health Communication
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2020-01-08
Volume
36
Issue
6
Pages
714-721
ISSN
  • 1041-0236 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7027
DOI
10.1080/10410236.2020.1712039
PMC
PMC9118123
OpenAlex
W2999241062
Cited by
57
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2
FWCI
11.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Communication (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
American Cancer Society (MRSG 13-234-01-PCSM)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
advanced cancer, spousal caregivers, dyadic communication, caregiver burden, caregiver preparedness, marital interaction, hostility, positivity, communication intervention
MeSH terms
Caregiver Burden, Adaptation, Psychological, Communication, Humans, Neoplasms, Stress, Psychological, 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