Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Recruitment of breast cancer survivors and their caregivers: implications for dyad research and practice

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Breast cancer survivors’ informal caregivers experience adverse health outcomes and could benefit from interventions. Studies of caregivers’ participation in research, to date, have assumed heterosexuality. The aim of this study is to identify factors associated with caregiver participation among survivors with diversity in sexual orientation. We recruited breast cancer survivors into a telephone survey and asked them to invite a caregiver. Logistic regression identified factors associated with caregivers’ participation. Among 297 survivors, 12 (4 %) had no caregivers, 82 (28 %) refused to provide caregiver information, 203 (68 %) provided caregiver contact, and 167 (56 %) had caregivers participate. Caregiver participation was more likely among sexual minority than heterosexual survivors (aOR: 1.89; 95 % CI: 1.08, 3.32), dyads with higher cohesion, and among caregivers who were partners. Caregiver participation was less likely among survivors with lower education and higher comorbidity. Findings provide insight into recruitment of diverse dyads into cancer survivorship research that will ultimately inform intervention design.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Cancer Society. Cancer Treatment and Survivorship Facts & Figures 2014–2015. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2014: Available at: http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@research/documents/document/acspc-042801.pdf. Accessibility verified August 18, 2015

  2. Nijboer C, Tempelaar R, Sanderman R, Triemstra M, Spruijt RJ, van den Bos GA. Cancer and caregiving: the impact on the caregiver's health. Psycho-Oncology. 1998; 7: 3-13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Koch L, Bertram H, Eberle A, et al. Fear of recurrence in long-term breast cancer survivors-still an issue. Results on prevalence, determinants, and the association with quality of life and depression from the cancer survivorship—a multi-regional population-based study. Psycho-Oncology. 2014; 23: 547-554.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kenyon M, Mayer DK, Owens AK. Late and long-term effects of breast cancer treatment and surveillance management for the general practitioner. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2014; 43: 382-398.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kim Y, Carver CS, Spillers RL, Love-Ghaffari M, Kaw CK. Dyadic effects of fear of recurrence on the quality of life of cancer survivors and their caregivers. Qual Life Res. 2012; 21: 517-525.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kim Y, Kashy DA, Wellisch DK, Spillers RL, Kaw CK, Smith TG. Quality of life of couples dealing with cancer: dyadic and individual adjustment among breast and prostate cancer survivors and their spousal caregivers. Ann Behav Med. 2008; 35: 230-238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mellon S, Kershaw TS, Northouse LL, Freeman-Gibb L. A family-based model to predict fear of recurrence for cancer survivors and their caregivers. Psycho-Oncology. 2007; 16: 214-223.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Manne S, Ostroff JS, Winkel G. Social-cognitive processes as moderators of a couple-focused group intervention for women with early stage breast cancer. Health Psychol. 2007; 26: 735-744.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Martire LM, Schulz R, Helgeson VS, Small BJ, Saghafi EM. Review and meta-analysis of couple-oriented interventions for chronic illness. Ann Behav Med. 2010; 40: 325-342.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Hagedoorn M, Puterman E, Sanderman R, et al. Is self-disclosure in couples coping with cancer associated with improvement in depressive symptoms? Health Psychol. 2011; 30: 753-762.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dagan M, Hagedoorn M. Response rates in studies of couples coping with cancer: a systematic review. Health Psychol. 2014; 33: 845-852.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Galea S, Tracy M. Participation rates in epidemiologic studies. Ann Epidemiol. 2007; 17: 643-653.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hagedoorn M, Hein FL, Schulz T, et al. Are patient and relationship variables associated with participation of intimate partners in couples research? Health Psychol. 2015; 34: 270-273.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Terp H, Rottmann N, Larsen PV, et al. Participation in questionnaire studies among couples affected by breast cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2015; 23: 1907-1916.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Christie KM, Meyerowitz BE, Stanton AL, Rowland JH, Ganz PA. Characteristics of breast cancer survivors that predict partners' participation in research. Ann Behav Med. 2013; 46: 107-113.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Institute of Medicine. The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: Building a Foundation for Better Understanding. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011: Available at: http://iom.nationalacademies.org/Reports/2011/The-Health-of-Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-and-Transgender-People.aspx. Accessibility verified August 18, 2015.

  17. Brown JP, Tracy JK. Lesbians and cancer: an overlooked health disparity. Cancer Causes Control. 2008; 19: 1009-1020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Case P, Bryn Austin S, Hunter DJ, et al. Sexual orientation, health risk factors, and physical functioning in the Nurses' Health Study II. J Women’s Health. 2004; 13: 1033-1047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Aaron D, Markovic N, Danielson M, Honnold J, Janosky J, Schmidt N. Behavioral risk factors for disease and preventive health practices among lesbians. Am J Public Health. 2001; 91: 972-975.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Dibble SL, Roberts SA, Robertson PA, Paul SM. Risk factors for ovarian cancer: lesbian and heterosexual women. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2002; 29: E1-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Valanis BG, Bowen DJ, Bassford T, Whitlock E, Charney P, Carter RA. Sexual orientation and health: comparisons in the women's health initiative sample. Arch Fam Med. 2000; 9: 843-853.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Boehmer U, Bowen DJ, Bauer GR. Overweight and obesity in sexual minority women: evidence from population-based data. Am J Public Health. 2007; 97: 1134-1140.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Boehmer U, Bowen DJ. Examining factors linked to overweight and obesity in women of different sexual orientations. Prev Med. 2009; 48: 357-361.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Burgard SA, Cochran SD, Mays VM. Alcohol and tobacco use patterns among heterosexually and homosexually experienced California women. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2005; 77: 61-70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Cochran SD, Keenan C, Schober C, Mays VM. Estimates of alcohol use and clinical treatment needs among homosexually active men and women in the U.S. population. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000; 68: 1062-1071.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Drabble L, Midanik LT, Trocki K. Reports of alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems among homosexual, bisexual and heterosexual respondents: results from the 2000 National Alcohol Survey. J Stud Alcohol. 2005; 66: 111-120.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gilman SE, Cochran SD, Mays VM, Hughes M, Ostrow D, Kessler RC. Risk of psychiatric disorders among individuals reporting same-sex sexual partners in the National Comorbidity Survey. Am J Public Health. 2001; 91: 933-939.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Cochran SD, Mays VM, Bowen D, et al. Cancer-related risk indicators and preventive screening behaviors among lesbians and bisexual women. Am J Public Health. 2001; 91: 591-597.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Rankow EJ, Tessaro I. Mammography and risk factors for breast cancer in lesbian and bisexual women. Am J Health Behav. 1998; 22: 403-410.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kavanaugh-Lynch MHE, White E, Daling JR, Bowen DJ. Correlates of lesbian sexual orientation and the risk of breast cancer. J Gay Lesbian Med Assoc. 2002; 6: 91-95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dibble SL, Roberts SA, Nussey B. Comparing breast cancer risk between lesbians and their heterosexual sisters. Womens Health Issues. 2004; 14: 60-68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Boehmer U, Ozonoff A, Timm A. County-level association of sexual minority density with breast cancer incidence: results from an ecological study. Sex Res Soc Policy. 2011; 8: 139-145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Cochran SD, Mays VM. Risk of breast cancer mortality among women cohabiting with same sex partners: findings from the National Health Interview Survey, 1997–2003. J Women’s Health. 2012; 21: 528-533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Washington KT, McElroy J, Albright D, et al. Experiences of sexual and gender minorities caring for adults with non-AIDS-related chronic illnesses. Soc Work Res. 2015; 39: 71-81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Boehmer U, Freund KM, Linde R. Support providers of sexual minority women with breast cancer: who they are and how they impact the breast cancer experience. J Psychosom Res. 2005; 59: 307-314.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Boehmer U, Tripodis Y, Bazzi AR, Winter M, Clark MA. Fear of cancer recurrence in survivor and caregiver dyads: differences by sexual orientation and how dyad members influence each other. J Cancer Surviv. 2016. doi:10.1007/s11764-016-0526-7.

  37. Boehmer U, Glickman M, Milton J, Winter M. Health-related quality of life in breast cancer survivors of different sexual orientations. Qual Life Res. 2012; 21: 225-236.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ganz PA, Desmond KA, Leedham B, Rowland JH, Meyerowitz BE, Belin TR. Quality of life in long-term, disease-free survivors of breast cancer: a follow-up study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002; 94: 39-49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Dorval M, Guay S, Mondor M, et al. Couples who get closer after breast cancer: frequency and predictors in a prospective investigation. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 3588-3596.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Spanier GB. Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage or similar dyads. J Marriage Fam. 1976; 38: 15-28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sears SR, Stanton AL, Kwan L, et al. Recruitment and retention challenges in breast cancer survivorship research: results from a multisite, randomized intervention trial in women with early stage breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2003; 12: 1087-1090.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Gross CP, Filardo G, Mayne ST, Krumholz HM. The impact of socioeconomic status and race on trial participation for older women with breast cancer. Cancer. 2005; 103: 483-491.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Fredman SJ, Baucom DH, Gremore TM, et al. Quantifying the recruitment challenges with couple-based interventions for cancer: applications to early-stage breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology. 2009; 18: 667-673.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Manne S, Badr H. Intimacy and relationship processes in couples' psychosocial adaptation to cancer. Cancer. 2008; 112: 2541-2555.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Ryan LH, Smith J, Antonucci TC, Jackson JS. Cohort differences in the availability of informal caregivers: are the Boomers at risk? The Gerontologist. 2012; 52: 177-188.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Bauer GR. Incorporating intersectionality theory into population health research methodology: challenges and the potential to advance health equity. Soc Sci Med. 2014; 110: 10-17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Support for this research was provided by the American Cancer Society, Grant # RSGT-06-135-01-CPPB and by funding from NCI 3R01CA181392-02S1 PI: U. Boehmer. Additional supplemental funding was made available by a Boston University School of Public Health pilot grant and the Boston University Peter Paul Career Development Professorship. The authors are grateful to the participants who took the time to respond to our questions and complete the survey.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, 801 Massachusetts Avenue, Crosstown Center, Boston, MA, 02118, USA

    Angela Robertson Bazzi PhD, MPH & Ulrike Boehmer PhD

  2. Warren Alpert School of Medicine and School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA

    Melissa A Clark PhD

  3. Data Coordinating Center, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

    Michael Winter MPH

  4. Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

    Yorghos Tripodis PhD

Authors
  1. Angela Robertson Bazzi PhD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Melissa A Clark PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Winter MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yorghos Tripodis PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ulrike Boehmer PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulrike Boehmer PhD.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Authors Bazzi, Clark, Winter, Tripodis, and Boehmer declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights and informed consent

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Implications

• Practice: Innovative and targeted outreach strategies are needed to engage diverse groups of breast cancer survivor-caregiver dyads in health promotion interventions.

• Policy: Funding is needed for developing evidence-based models to recruit and retain breast cancer survivor-caregiver dyads in research and interventions.

• Research: To increase generalizability and relevance of research findings for intervention development, studies must recruit socio-demographically diverse breast cancer survivor-caregiver dyads.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bazzi, A.R., Clark, M.A., Winter, M. et al. Recruitment of breast cancer survivors and their caregivers: implications for dyad research and practice. Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res. 7, 300–308 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-016-0400-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-016-0400-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation