Tim Regan1, Sylvie D Lambert, Brian Kelly. 1. Centre for Translational Neuroscience and Mental Health, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Recognition that patients and partners are both affected by a cancer diagnosis has led to increased interest in couple-based interventions. Although these interventions show promise for enhancing both patients' and partners' illness adjustment, couples' acceptance of these interventions is not well documented. This review explores these issues as reflected in uptake and attrition rates in published trials. METHODS: A literature search identified 17 manuscripts reporting the uptake and attrition rates of couple-based interventions for couples facing cancer. The uptake (percentage of eligible couples randomised into a trial) and the attrition (percentage of couples who dropped out of a trial) rates were extracted by cancer type, cancer stage, intervention type, intervention focus and intervention delivery method. RESULTS: Uptake and attrition rates ranged from 13.6% to 94.2% and 0% to 49.4%, respectively. Low uptake rates were noted for communication-focused interventions and those requiring both the patient and the partner to participate in the intervention simultaneously. Attrition was also high in the latter group. Uptake rates appeared slightly lower than individual-based interventions (58%-76%), as were attrition rates, although only for late stage cancer (~30% couple-based vs. ~69% individual-based). Common barriers to uptake included accessibility, competing priorities and illness severity. CONCLUSIONS: The couple-based interventions had slightly lower uptake rates than what has been previously reported for individual-based interventions; however, lower attrition suggests patients and partners may be more inclined to complete an intervention when they participate together. The findings support the need to develop strategies to improve the delivery and acceptability of couple-based interventions in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: Recognition that patients and partners are both affected by a cancer diagnosis has led to increased interest in couple-based interventions. Although these interventions show promise for enhancing both patients' and partners' illness adjustment, couples' acceptance of these interventions is not well documented. This review explores these issues as reflected in uptake and attrition rates in published trials. METHODS: A literature search identified 17 manuscripts reporting the uptake and attrition rates of couple-based interventions for couples facing cancer. The uptake (percentage of eligible couples randomised into a trial) and the attrition (percentage of couples who dropped out of a trial) rates were extracted by cancer type, cancer stage, intervention type, intervention focus and intervention delivery method. RESULTS: Uptake and attrition rates ranged from 13.6% to 94.2% and 0% to 49.4%, respectively. Low uptake rates were noted for communication-focused interventions and those requiring both the patient and the partner to participate in the intervention simultaneously. Attrition was also high in the latter group. Uptake rates appeared slightly lower than individual-based interventions (58%-76%), as were attrition rates, although only for late stage cancer (~30% couple-based vs. ~69% individual-based). Common barriers to uptake included accessibility, competing priorities and illness severity. CONCLUSIONS: The couple-based interventions had slightly lower uptake rates than what has been previously reported for individual-based interventions; however, lower attrition suggests patients and partners may be more inclined to complete an intervention when they participate together. The findings support the need to develop strategies to improve the delivery and acceptability of couple-based interventions in clinical practice.
Authors: Sylvie D Lambert; Patrick McElduff; Afaf Girgis; Janelle V Levesque; Tim W Regan; Jane Turner; Hayley Candler; Cathrine Mihalopoulos; Sophy T F Shih; Karen Kayser; Peter Chong Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Linda E Carlson; Codie R Rouleau; Michael Speca; John Robinson; Barry D Bultz Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-01-07 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Sharon L Manne; Deborah A Kashy; Talia Zaider; David Kissane; David Lee; Isaac Y Kim; Carolyn J Heckman; Frank J Penedo; Evangelynn Murphy; Shannon Myers Virtue Journal: Br J Health Psychol Date: 2019-03-10
Authors: Marie-Claude Blais; Elizabeth Maunsell; Sophie Grenier; Sophie Lauzier; Michel Dorval; Sylvie Pelletier; Stéphane Guay; André Robidoux; Louise Provencher Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2014-04-27 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Sharon Manne; Deborah A Kashy; Talia Zaider; David Lee; Isaac Y Kim; Carolyn Heckman; Frank Penedo; David Kissane; Shannon Myers Virtue Journal: J Fam Psychol Date: 2018-05-17
Authors: Sylvie D Lambert; Afaf Girgis; Patrick McElduff; Jane Turner; Janelle V Levesque; Karen Kayser; Cathrine Mihalopoulos; Sophy T F Shih; Daniel Barker Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-07-24 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Tammy Son; Sylvie Lambert; Ann Jakubowski; Barbara DiCicco-Bloom; Carmen G Loiselle Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Dana L Carthron; Ashley Phillips; Carmen C Cuthbertson; Katrina R Ellis; Mary Altpeter; Leigh F Callahan; Stephanie Bahorski; Christine Rini Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2018-07-18