Joan K Monin1, Andrew Manigault2, Becca R Levy1, Richard Schulz3, Ajua Duker4, Margaret S Clark4, Peter H Van Ness5, Trace Kershaw1. 1. Social and Behavioral Sciences, Yale School of Public Health. 2. Department of Psychology, Ohio University. 3. University Center for Social and Urban Research, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh. 4. Department of Psychology, Yale University. 5. Internal Medicine, Geriatric Medicine, Yale School of Medicine.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the cardiovascular effects of mutual emotional spousal support given for health concerns. We examined the hypotheses that: (a) mutual support (both spouses giving and receiving support) compared to one-sided or no support, would decrease blood pressure and heart rate in both spouses during a recovery period; and (b) wives would benefit more from mutual support than would husbands. A second aim was to examine gender differences in cardiovascular reactivity, distress, and closeness in response to receiving support regardless of mutuality. METHOD: In 98 married couples (Age 50+), spouses discussed health concerns and were assigned randomly to one of four conditions: neither spouse received support (n = 26), only the wife received support from the husband (n = 22), only the husband received support from the wife (n = 23), or both received support (n = 27). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate were measured during baseline, the discussions, and recovery. Distress, closeness, and support were self-reported. Support quality was observationally coded. RESULTS: Mutual support did not affect cardiovascular reactivity. When husbands received support from wives, husbands' blood pressure and distress decreased, and both partners' closeness increased. When wives received support, husbands and wives felt closer, but both partners' heart rate remained elevated and wives felt more distressed. CONCLUSIONS: Receiving support individually may be more important than receiving support mutually for older adult spouses coping with their health concerns. Also, support interventions for couples coping with health conditions should take into account that husbands receive greater benefits from spousal support than wives. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the cardiovascular effects of mutual emotional spousal support given for health concerns. We examined the hypotheses that: (a) mutual support (both spouses giving and receiving support) compared to one-sided or no support, would decrease blood pressure and heart rate in both spouses during a recovery period; and (b) wives would benefit more from mutual support than would husbands. A second aim was to examine gender differences in cardiovascular reactivity, distress, and closeness in response to receiving support regardless of mutuality. METHOD: In 98 married couples (Age 50+), spouses discussed health concerns and were assigned randomly to one of four conditions: neither spouse received support (n = 26), only the wife received support from the husband (n = 22), only the husband received support from the wife (n = 23), or both received support (n = 27). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate were measured during baseline, the discussions, and recovery. Distress, closeness, and support were self-reported. Support quality was observationally coded. RESULTS: Mutual support did not affect cardiovascular reactivity. When husbands received support from wives, husbands' blood pressure and distress decreased, and both partners' closeness increased. When wives received support, husbands and wives felt closer, but both partners' heart rate remained elevated and wives felt more distressed. CONCLUSIONS: Receiving support individually may be more important than receiving support mutually for older adult spouses coping with their health concerns. Also, support interventions for couples coping with health conditions should take into account that husbands receive greater benefits from spousal support than wives. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Virginia P Williams; Lauren Bishop-Fitzpatrick; James D Lane; Lisa P Gwyther; Edna L Ballard; Analise P Vendittelli; Tiffany C Hutchins; Redford B Williams Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2010-10-26 Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Yun Jiang; Lauren Terhorst; Heidi S Donovan; Jason M Weimer; Chien-Wen J Choi; Richard Schulz; Barbara Given; Paula R Sherwood Journal: J Nurs Meas Date: 2013