OBJECTIVE: Hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) survivors who are 1 to 3 years posttransplant are challenged by the need to resume valued social roles and activities--a task that may be complicated by enduring transplant-related psychological distress common in this patient population. The present study investigated whether transplant survivors who receive adequate social support from their spouse or intimate partner experience lower distress. METHOD: Effects of receiving a greater quantity of partner support (a common approach to studying enacted support) were compared with effects of receiving more effective partner support (i.e., support that more closely matches their needs in terms of its quantity and quality). Men and women (N = 230) who were 1 to 3 years posttransplant completed measures of partner support quantity (Manne & Schnoll, 2001), partner social support effectiveness (Rini & Dunkel Schetter, 2010), and psychological distress (Brief Symptom Inventory; Derogatis & Spencer, 1982). Potential medical and sociodemographic confounds were controlled in analyses. RESULTS: As hypothesized, survivors reported less distress when they received more effective partner support (p < .001). Quantity of partner support was not associated with distress (p = .23). An interaction revealed that when partner support was effective, the quantity of support survivors received was not associated with their distress (p = .90); however, when partner support was ineffective, receiving a greater quantity of partner support was associated with substantially elevated distress (p = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that clinical approaches to addressing or preventing enduring distress after HSCT should target features of partner support related to its appraised effectiveness.
OBJECTIVE: Hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) survivors who are 1 to 3 years posttransplant are challenged by the need to resume valued social roles and activities--a task that may be complicated by enduring transplant-related psychological distress common in this patient population. The present study investigated whether transplant survivors who receive adequate social support from their spouse or intimate partner experience lower distress. METHOD: Effects of receiving a greater quantity of partner support (a common approach to studying enacted support) were compared with effects of receiving more effective partner support (i.e., support that more closely matches their needs in terms of its quantity and quality). Men and women (N = 230) who were 1 to 3 years posttransplant completed measures of partner support quantity (Manne & Schnoll, 2001), partner social support effectiveness (Rini & Dunkel Schetter, 2010), and psychological distress (Brief Symptom Inventory; Derogatis & Spencer, 1982). Potential medical and sociodemographic confounds were controlled in analyses. RESULTS: As hypothesized, survivors reported less distress when they received more effective partner support (p < .001). Quantity of partner support was not associated with distress (p = .23). An interaction revealed that when partner support was effective, the quantity of support survivors received was not associated with their distress (p = .90); however, when partner support was ineffective, receiving a greater quantity of partner support was associated with substantially elevated distress (p = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that clinical approaches to addressing or preventing enduring distress after HSCT should target features of partner support related to its appraised effectiveness.
Authors: J Douglas Rizzo; John R Wingard; Andre Tichelli; Stephanie J Lee; Maria Teresa Van Lint; Linda J Burns; Stella M Davies; James L M Ferrara; Gérard Socié Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Nicole Hochhausen; Elizabeth M Altmaier; Richard McQuellon; Stella M Davies; Esperanza Papadopolous; Shelly Carter; Jean Henslee-Downey Journal: J Psychosoc Oncol Date: 2007
Authors: Allison J Applebaum; Emma M Stein; Jennifer Lord-Bessen; Hayley Pessin; Barry Rosenfeld; William Breitbart Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Lianne M Tomfohr; Elena Buliga; Nicole L Letourneau; Tavis S Campbell; Gerald F Giesbrecht Journal: Sleep Date: 2015-08-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Marjorie Margolis; Jane Austin; Lisa Wu; Heiddis Valdimarsdottir; Annette L Stanton; Scott D Rowley; Pashna M Munshi; Christine Rini Journal: Int J Behav Med Date: 2019-08
Authors: Catherine E Mosher; Mary A Ott; Nasser Hanna; Shadia I Jalal; Victoria L Champion Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-12-20 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Fawwaz Alaloul; Dorothy Y Brockopp; Michael A Andrykowski; Lynne A Hall; Taghreed S Al Nusairat Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Margaret Bevans; Areej El-Jawahri; D Kathryn Tierney; Lori Wiener; William A Wood; Flora Hoodin; Erin E Kent; Paul B Jacobsen; Stephanie J Lee; Matthew M Hsieh; Ellen M Denzen; Karen L Syrjala Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2016-09-19 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Jennifer M Knight; Jeffrey M Lyness; Olle Jane Z Sahler; Jane L Liesveld; Jan A Moynihan Journal: Psychoneuroendocrinology Date: 2013-07-08 Impact factor: 4.905