Tim W Regan1, Sylvie D Lambert1,2, Brian Kelly1, Mariana Falconier3, David Kissane4, Janelle V Levesque5. 1. Centre for Translational Neuroscience and Mental Health and Health Behaviour Research Group, The University of Newcastle, Australia. 2. McGill University, Canada. 3. Department of Human Development, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA. 4. School of Psychology and Psychiatry, Monash University, Australia. 5. Psycho-Oncology Research Group, Centre for Oncology Education and Research Translation, Ingham Institute, The University of New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A diagnosis of cancer and subsequent treatment are distressing not only for the person directly affected, but also for their intimate partner. The aim of this review is to (a) identify the main theoretical frameworks underpinning research addressing dyadic coping among couples affected by cancer, (b) summarise the evidence supporting the concepts described in these theoretical frameworks, and (c) examine the similarities and differences between these theoretical perspectives. METHODS: A literature search was undertaken to identify descriptive studies published between 1990 and 2013 (English and French) that examined the interdependence of patients' and partners' coping, and the impact of coping on psychosocial outcomes. Data were extracted using a standardised form and reviewed by three of the authors. RESULTS: Twenty-three peer-reviewed manuscripts were identified, from which seven theoretical perspectives were derived: Relationship-Focused Coping, Transactional Model of Stress and Coping, Systemic-Transactional Model (STM) of dyadic coping, Collaborative Coping, Relationship Intimacy model, Communication models, and Coping Congruence. Although these theoretical perspectives emphasised different aspects of coping, a number of conceptual commonalities were noted. CONCLUSION: This review identified key theoretical frameworks of dyadic coping used in cancer. Evidence indicates that responses within the couple that inhibit open communication between partner and patient are likely to have an adverse impact on psychosocial outcomes. Models that incorporate the interdependence of emotional responses and coping behaviours within couples have an emerging evidence base in psycho-oncology and may have greatest validity and clinical utility in this setting.
OBJECTIVE: A diagnosis of cancer and subsequent treatment are distressing not only for the person directly affected, but also for their intimate partner. The aim of this review is to (a) identify the main theoretical frameworks underpinning research addressing dyadic coping among couples affected by cancer, (b) summarise the evidence supporting the concepts described in these theoretical frameworks, and (c) examine the similarities and differences between these theoretical perspectives. METHODS: A literature search was undertaken to identify descriptive studies published between 1990 and 2013 (English and French) that examined the interdependence of patients' and partners' coping, and the impact of coping on psychosocial outcomes. Data were extracted using a standardised form and reviewed by three of the authors. RESULTS: Twenty-three peer-reviewed manuscripts were identified, from which seven theoretical perspectives were derived: Relationship-Focused Coping, Transactional Model of Stress and Coping, Systemic-Transactional Model (STM) of dyadic coping, Collaborative Coping, Relationship Intimacy model, Communication models, and Coping Congruence. Although these theoretical perspectives emphasised different aspects of coping, a number of conceptual commonalities were noted. CONCLUSION: This review identified key theoretical frameworks of dyadic coping used in cancer. Evidence indicates that responses within the couple that inhibit open communication between partner and patient are likely to have an adverse impact on psychosocial outcomes. Models that incorporate the interdependence of emotional responses and coping behaviours within couples have an emerging evidence base in psycho-oncology and may have greatest validity and clinical utility in this setting.
Authors: Ulrike Boehmer; Jeffrey E Stokes; Angela R Bazzi; Michael Winter; Melissa A Clark Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2018-07-26 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Jennifer Barsky Reese; Kristen Sorice; Mary Catherine Beach; Laura S Porter; James A Tulsky; Mary B Daly; Stephen J Lepore Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2016-11-17 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Gregor Weißflog; Klaus Hönig; Harald Gündel; Dirk Lang; Dietger Niederwieser; Hartmut Döhner; Martin Vogelhuber; Anja Mehnert; Jochen Ernst Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Harleah G Buck; Karen Lyons; Philip Barrison; Paula Cairns; Tina Mason; Cindy Tofthagen; Kevin Kip Journal: West J Nurs Res Date: 2021-01-29 Impact factor: 1.967
Authors: Melanie P J Schellekens; Johan C Karremans; Miep A van der Drift; Johan Molema; Desiree G M van den Hurk; Judith B Prins; Anne E M Speckens Journal: Mindfulness (N Y) Date: 2016-09-06
Authors: Julie Midtgaard; Tine Tjørnhøj-Thomsen; Mette Rørth; Malene Kronborg; Eik D Bjerre; John L Oliffe Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-07-15 Impact factor: 3.295