CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 45Attachment and Relationship DynamicsCancer survivorship and careHead and Neck Cancer Studies

Dyadic Coping in Patients Undergoing Radiotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer and Their Spouses

Open access
Badr, Hoda, Herbert, Krista, Bonnen, Mark D., Asper, Joshua A., Wagner, Timothy·2018·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01780PMC PMC6196240
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Head and neck cancer (HNC) adversely affects the psychological (i.e., depression, anxiety) and marital adjustment of patients and their spouses. Dyadic coping refers to how couples cope with stress. It includes positive actions like sharing practical or emotional concerns (i.e., problem- and emotion-focused stress communication; PFSC, EFSC), and engaging in problem- or emotion-focused actions to support each other (problem- and emotion-focused dyadic coping; PFDC, EFDC). It also includes negative actions like avoidance (negative dyadic coping; NEGDC). In this secondary analysis of a randomized pilot trial of a couple-based dyadic coping intervention called SHARE (Spouses coping with the Head And neck Radiation Experience), we first examined associations between patients’ and spouses’ dyadic coping (and satisfaction with dyadic coping; SATDC) and their own/each other’s psychological and marital adjustment. Next, we examined the effects of SHARE relative to usual medical care (UMC) on patients’ and spouses’ dyadic coping. Finally, we examined whether changes in dyadic coping were associated with changes in patients’ and spouses’ psychological and marital adjustment. METHODS AND MEASURES: Thirty HNC patients (80% men) and their spouses (N=60) completed baseline surveys prior to initiating radiotherapy (RT) and were randomized to SHARE or UMC. One month after RT, they completed follow-up surveys. RESULTS: Baseline multilevel Actor-Partner Interdependence Models revealed significant actor effects of PFSC (effect size r=-.32) and PFDC (r=-.29) on depression. For marital adjustment, significant actor effects were found for PFSC, PFDC, EFDC, and SATDC (p<.05, r = .23 to .38). Actor (r=-.35) and partner effects (r=-.27) for NEGDC were also significant. Moderate to large effect sizes were found in favor of SHARE on PFSC (Cohen’s d=1.14), PFDC (d=.64), NEGDC (d=-.68), and SATDC (d=1.03). Improvements in PFDC were associated with reductions in depression and anxiety (p<.05); and, improvements in SATDC were associated with improvements in anxiety and marital adjustment (p<.05). CONCLUSION: SHARE improved positive and decreased negative dyadic coping for patients and spouses. Increases in positive dyadic coping were also associated with improvements in psychological and marital adjustment. Although findings are preliminary, more research on ways to integrate dyadic coping interventions into oncology supportive care appears warranted.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01780

Cites

7 of 7 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: 45

  1. Ackerman R. A. Donnellan M. B. Kashy D. A. (2011). “Working with dyadic data in studies of emerging adulthood: specific recommendations, general advice, and practical tips,” in Advances in Personal Relationships. Romantic Relationships in Emerging Adulthood, eds Fincham F. D. Cui M. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press), 67– 97.
  2. Aizer A. A. Chen M.-H. McCarthy E. P. Mendu M. L. Koo S. Wilhite T. J. (2013). Marital status and survival in patients with cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 31 3869– 3876. 10.1200/JCO.2013.49.6489 24062405 PMC4878087 · DOI
  3. Applebaum A. J. Breitbart W. (2013). Care for the cancer caregiver: a systematic review. Palliat. Support. Care 11 231– 252. 10.1017/S1478951512000594 23046977 PMC4973511 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Badr H. (2017). New frontiers in couple-based interventions in cancer care: refining the prescription for spousal communication. Acta Oncol. 56 139– 145. 10.1080/0284186X.2016.1266079 27937437 · DOI
  5. Badr H. Carmack C. Kashy D. Cristofanilli M. Revenson T. (2010). Dyadic coping in metastatic breast cancer. Health Psychol. 29 169– 180. 10.1037/a0018165 20230090 PMC3138118 · DOI
  6. Badr H. Herbert K. Reckson B. Rainey H. Sallam A. Gupta V. (2016). Unmet needs and relationship challenges of head and neck cancer patients and their spouses. J. Psychosoc. Oncol. 34 336– 346. 10.1080/07347332.2016.1195901 27269579 PMC4951153 · DOI
  7. Badr H. Yeung C. Lewis M. A. Milbury K. Redd W. H. (2015). An observational study of social control, mood, and self-efficacy in couples during treatment for head and neck cancer. Psychol. Health 30 783– 802. 10.1080/08870446.2014.994633 25471820 PMC4414685 · DOI
  8. Baumeister R. F. Bratslavsky E. Finkenauer C. Vohs K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 5 323– 370. 10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Bodenmann G. (2005). “Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning,” in Couples Coping with Stress: Emerging Perspectives on Dyadic Coping, eds Revenson T. A. Kayser K. Bodenmann G. (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association), 33– 50. 10.1037/11031-002 · DOI
  10. Bodenmann G. Shantinath S. D. (2004). The couples coping enhancement training (CCET): a new approach to prevention of marital distress based upon stress and coping∗. Fam. Relat. 53 477– 484. 10.1111/j.0197-6664.2004.00056.x · DOI
  11. Burman B. Margolin G. (1992). Analysis of the association between marital relationships and health problems: an interactional perspective. Psychol. Bull. 112 39– 63. 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.39 1529039 · DOI
  12. Cameron L. Leventhal H. (2012). The Self-Regulation of Health and Illness Behaviour. New York, NY: Routledge 10.4324/9780203553220 · DOI
  13. Clark N. M. Becker M. H. Janz N. K. Lorig K. Rakowski W. Anderson L. (1991). Self-management of chronic disease by older adults. J. Aging Health 3 3– 27. 10.1177/089826439100300101 · DOI
  14. Duffy S. A. Ronis D. L. Valenstein M. Lambert M. T. Fowler K. E. Gregory L. (2006). A tailored smoking, alcohol, and depression intervention for head and neck cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 15 2203– 2208. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0880 17119047 · DOI
  15. Epstein J. Meij E. Emerton S. Le N. Stevenson-Moore P. (1995). Compliance with fluoride gel use in irradiated patients. Spec. Care Dent. 15 218– 222. 10.1111/j.1754-4505.1995.tb00521.x 9002922 · DOI
  16. Epstein J. Robertson M. Emerton S. Phillips N. Stevenson-Moore P. (2001). Quality of life and oral function in patients treated with radiation therapy for head and neck cancer. Head Neck 23 389– 398. 10.1002/hed.1049 11295813 · DOI
  17. Falconier M. K. Jackson J. B. Hilpert P. Bodenmann G. (2015). Dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 42 28– 46. 10.1016/j.cpr.2015.07.002 26295276 · DOI
  18. Glasdam S. Jensen A. B. Madsen E. L. Rose C. (1996). Anxiety and depression in cancer patients’ spouses. Psychooncology 5 23– 29. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1611(199603)5:1<23::AID-PON206>3.0.CO;2-H · DOI
  19. Gottman J. (1991). Predicting the longitudinal course of marriages. J. Marital Fam. Ther. 17 3– 7. 10.1111/j.1752-0606.1991.tb00856.x · DOI
  20. Gritz E. R. Carmack C. L. de Moor C. A. Coscarelli A. Schacherer C. W. Meyers E. G. (1999). The first year after head and neck cancer: quality of life. J. Clin. Oncol. 17 352– 360. 10.1200/JCO.1999.17.1.352 10458254 · DOI
  21. Heinrichs N. Zimmermann T. Huber B. Herschbach P. Russell D. W. Baucom D. H. (2011). Cancer distress reduction with a couple-based skills training: a randomized controlled trial. Ann. Behav. Med. 43 239– 252. 10.1007/s12160-011-9314-9 22037965 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Hunsley J. Best M. Lefebvre M. Vito D. (2001). The seven item short form of the dyadic adjustment scale: further evidence for the construct validity. Am. J. Fam. Ther. 29 325– 335. 10.1080/01926180126501 · DOI
  23. Janoff-Bulman R. (1989). Assumptive worlds and the stress of traumatic events: applications of the schema construct. Soc. Cognit. 7 113– 136. 10.1521/soco.1989.7.2.113 · DOI
  24. Jansma J. Vissink A. Spijkervet F. Roodenburg J. Panders A. Vermey A. (1992). Protocol for the prevention and treatment of oral sequelae resulting from head and neck radiation therapy. Cancer 70 2171– 2180. 10.1002/1097-0142(19921015)70:8<2171::AID-CNCR2820700827>3.0.CO;2-S 1394048 · DOI
  25. Karraker A. Latham K. (2015). In sickness and in health? Physical illness as a risk factor for marital dissolution in later life. J. Health Soc. Behav. 56 420– 435. 10.1177/0022146515596354 26315504 PMC4857885 · DOI
  26. Kayser K. Feldman B. N. Borstelmann N. A. Daniels A. A. (2010). Effects of a randomized couple-based intervention on quality of life of breast cancer patients and their partners. Soc. Work Res. 34 20– 32. 10.1002/pon.3200 23045191 PMC3562417 · DOI
  27. Kershaw T. S. Mood D. W. Newth G. Ronis D. L. Sanda M. G. Vaishampayan U. (2008). Longitudinal analysis of a model to predict quality of life in prostate cancer patients and their spouses. Ann. Behav. Med. 36 117– 128. 10.1007/s12160-008-9058-3 18830672 PMC2872798 · DOI
  28. Konski A. A. Pajak T. F. Movsas B. Coyne J. Harris J. Gwede C. (2006). Disadvantage of men living alone participating in radiation therapy oncology group head and neck trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 24 4177– 4183. 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.2901 16943534 · DOI
  29. Kuijer R. G. Ybema J. F. Buunk B. P. DeJong G. J. (2000). Active engagement, protective buffering, and overprotection: three ways of giving support by intimate partners of patients with cancer. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 19 256– 275. 10.1521/jscp.2000.19.2.256 · DOI
  30. Lepore S. J. Revenson T. A. (2007). Social constraints on disclosure and adjustment to cancer. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 1 313– 333. 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00013.x · DOI
  31. Manne S. Badr H. (2010). “Social relationships and cancer,” in Support Processes in Intimate Relationships, eds Davila J. Sullivan K. (New York, NY: Oxford Press), 240– 264. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195380170.003.0010 · DOI
  32. McGuire D. (2003). Barriers and strategies in implementation of oral care standards for cancer patients. Support. Care Cancer 11 435– 441. 10.1007/s00520-003-0466-4 12692708 · DOI
  33. McLean L. M. Walton T. Rodin G. Esplen M. J. Jones J. M. (2011). A couple-based intervention for patients and caregivers facing end-stage cancer: outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. Psychooncology 22 28– 38. 10.1002/pon.2046 21919119 · DOI
  34. Meier C. Bodenmann G. Mörgeli H. Jenewein J. (2011). Dyadic coping, quality of life, and psychological distress among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients and their partners. Int. J. Chron. Obstruct. Pulmon. Dis. 6 583– 596. 10.2147/COPD.S24508 22135491 PMC3224653 · DOI
  35. Nguyen N. Smith H. Sallah S. (2007). Evaluation and management of swallowing dysfunction following chemoradiation for head and neck cancer. Curr. Opin. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 15 130– 133. 10.1097/MOO.0b013e32801da0e8 17413416 · DOI
  36. Nitenberg G. Raynard B. (2000). Nutritional support of the cancer patient: issues and dilemmas. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 34 137– 168. 10.1016/S1040-8428(00)00048-2 10838261 · DOI
  37. Ostroff J. Ross S. Steinglass P. Ronis-Tobin V. Singh B. (2004). Interest in and barriers to participation in multiple family groups among head and neck cancer survivors and their primary family caregivers. Fam. Process 43 195– 208. 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2004.04302005.x 15603503 · DOI
  38. Paccagnella A. Morello M. Da Mosto M. C. Baruffi C. Marcon M. L. Gava A. (2010). Early nutritional intervention improves treatment tolerance and outcomes in head and neck cancer patients undergoing concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Support. Care Cancer 18 837– 845. 10.1007/s00520-009-0717-0 19727846 · DOI
  39. Pilkonis P. A. Choi S. W. Reise S. P. Stover A. M. Riley W. T. Cella D. (2011). Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS®): depression, anxiety, and anger. Assessment 18 263– 283. 10.1177/1073191111411667 21697139 PMC3153635 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Randall A. K. Hilpert P. Jimenez-Arista L. E. Walsh K. J. Bodenmann G. (2016). Dyadic coping in the US: psychometric properties and validity for use of the english version of the dyadic coping inventory. Curr. Psychol. 35 570– 582. 10.1007/s12144-015-9323-0 · DOI
  41. Rottmann N. Hansen D. G. Larsen P. V. Nicolaisen A. Flyger H. Johansen C. (2015). Dyadic coping within couples dealing with breast cancer: a longitudinal, population-based study. Health Psychol. 34 486– 495. 10.1037/hea0000218 25730611 · DOI
  42. Semple C. Parahoo K. Norman A. McCaughan E. Humphris G. Mills M. (2013). Psychosocial interventions for patients with head and neck cancer. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 7: CD009441. 10.1002/14651858.CD009441.pub2 23857592 PMC11936101 · DOI
  43. Shinn E. H. Basen-Engquist K. Baum G. Steen S. Bauman R. F. Morrison W. (2013). Adherence to preventive exercises and self-reported swallowing outcomes in post-radiation head and neck cancer patients. Head Neck 35 1707– 1712. 10.1002/hed.23255 24142523 PMC3943468 · DOI
  44. Siegel R. Miller K. Jemal A. (2017). Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J. Clin. 67 7– 30. 10.3322/caac.21387 28055103 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Trotti A. Bellm L. A. Epstein J. B. Frame D. Fuchs H. J. Gwede C. K. (2003). Mucositis incidence, severity and associated outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy: a systematic literature review. Radiother. Oncol. 66 253– 262. 10.1016/S0167-8140(02)00404-8 12742264 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Badr, H., Herbert, K., Bonnen, M. D., Asper, J. A., & Wagner, T.
Affiliations
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • Rowan University (US)
Corresponding author
Badr, Hoda
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2018-10-15
Volume
9
Pages
1780-1780
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01780
PMC
PMC6196240
OpenAlex
W2891292237
Cited by
45
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4
FWCI
4.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (R21 CA 178478)
  • National Institutes of Health (P30 CA125123)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Head and Neck Cancer Studies
Keywords
dyadic coping, head and neck cancer, radiotherapy, couples, spouses, marital adjustment, depression, anxiety, stress communication, avoidance, actor-partner interdependence, quality of life, cancer survivorship, caregiver burden, social support

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