Sharon L Manne1, Deborah Kashy2, Shannon Myers-Virtue3, Talia Zaider4, David W Kissane5, Carolyn J Heckman1, Isaac Kim1, Frank Penedo6, David Lee7. 1. Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. 2. Michigan State University, Lansing, MI, USA. 3. Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Christiana Care Health System, Newark, DE, USA. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Notre Dame Australia, and Cabrini Health and Monash Health Psycho-Oncology, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia. 6. Sylvester Cancer Center, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA. 7. Division of Urology, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: How couples communicate about cancer is an important predictor of psychological outcomes for men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer and their spouses. We examined the predictive role of disclosure, responsiveness, mutual avoidance, and holding back on depressive symptoms, psychological adjustment, cancer-specific distress, and cancer concerns. METHODS: Eighty-one prostate cancer patients and their spouses completed measures of communication at baseline and measures of four psychological outcomes at baseline, five, 12, and 26 weeks after baseline. Dyadic growth models tested the effects of time and role on each outcome over time. RESULTS: Higher disclosure and responsiveness predicted better psychological outcomes. Less mutual avoidance and holding back predicted poorer psychological outcomes. Across communication variables, individuals who engaged in poorer communication initially had poorer psychological outcomes that improved over time, whereas individuals who engaged in better communication initially maintained their more positive standing without change or changed in the positive direction. For all outcomes, those with better communication still had better psychological outcomes at six months. CONCLUSION: Couples' cancer-specific relationship communication predicts their psychological outcomes. More research is needed to identify effective interventions, including a longer therapy course, individual communication training, or greater focus on addressing barriers to sharing and responsiveness.
OBJECTIVE: How couples communicate about cancer is an important predictor of psychological outcomes for men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer and their spouses. We examined the predictive role of disclosure, responsiveness, mutual avoidance, and holding back on depressive symptoms, psychological adjustment, cancer-specific distress, and cancer concerns. METHODS: Eighty-one prostate cancer patients and their spouses completed measures of communication at baseline and measures of four psychological outcomes at baseline, five, 12, and 26 weeks after baseline. Dyadic growth models tested the effects of time and role on each outcome over time. RESULTS: Higher disclosure and responsiveness predicted better psychological outcomes. Less mutual avoidance and holding back predicted poorer psychological outcomes. Across communication variables, individuals who engaged in poorer communication initially had poorer psychological outcomes that improved over time, whereas individuals who engaged in better communication initially maintained their more positive standing without change or changed in the positive direction. For all outcomes, those with better communication still had better psychological outcomes at six months. CONCLUSION: Couples' cancer-specific relationship communication predicts their psychological outcomes. More research is needed to identify effective interventions, including a longer therapy course, individual communication training, or greater focus on addressing barriers to sharing and responsiveness.
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: David F Penson; Dale McLerran; Ziding Feng; Lin Li; Peter C Albertsen; Frank D Gilliland; Ann Hamilton; Richard M Hoffman; Robert A Stephenson; Arnold L Potosky; Janet L Stanford Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Sharon L Manne; David W Kissane; Christian J Nelson; John P Mulhall; Gary Winkel; Talia Zaider Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2011-01-06 Impact factor: 3.802
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: Anne Sofie Friberg; Susanne Oksbjerg Dalton; Signe Benzon Larsen; Elisabeth W Andersen; Anja Krøyer; John Thomas Helgstrand; Martin Andreas Røder; Christoffer Johansen; Klaus Brasso Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2019-07-23
Authors: Suzanne K Chambers; Shu Kay Ng; Peter Baade; Joanne F Aitken; Melissa K Hyde; Gary Wittert; Mark Frydenberg; Jeff Dunn Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 3.894