Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Enabling or Cultivating? The Role of Prostate Cancer Patients’ Received Partner Support and Self-Efficacy in the Maintenance of Pelvic Floor Exercise Following Tumor Surgery

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Background

To manage incontinence following tumor surgery, prostate cancer patients are advised to perform pelvic floor exercise (PFE). Patients’ self-efficacy and support from partners were shown to facilitate PFE. Whereas support may enhance self-efficacy (enabling function), self-efficacy may also cultivate support (cultivation function).

Purpose

Cross-lagged inter-relationships among self-efficacy, support, and PFE were investigated.

Method

Post-surgery patient-reported received support, self-efficacy, PFE, and partner-reported provided support were assessed from 175 couples at four times. Autoregressive models tested interrelations among variables, using either patients’ or partners’ reports of support.

Results

Models using patients’ data revealed positive associations between self-efficacy and changes in received support, which predicted increased PFE. Using partners’ accounts of support provided, these associations were partially cross-validated. Furthermore, partner-provided support was related with increases in patients’ self-efficacy.

Conclusion

Patients’ self-efficacy may cultivate partners’ support provision for patients’ PFE, whereas evidence of an enabling function of support as a predictor of self-efficacy was inconsistent.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015; 136: E359-E386.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014; 370: 932-942.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Resendes LA, McCorkle R. Spousal responses to prostate cancer: An integrative review. Cancer Invest. 2006; 24: 192-198.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Resnick MJ, Koyama T, Fan KH, et al. Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013; 368: 436-445.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Dorey G, Glazener C, Buckley B, Cochran C, Moore K. Developing a pelvic floor muscle training regimen for use in a trial intervention. Physiotherapy. 2009; 95: 199-208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Burkert S, Knoll N, Luszczynska A, Gralla O. The interplay of dyadic and individual planning of pelvic-floor exercise in prostate-cancer patients following radical prostatectomy. J Behav Med. 2012; 35: 305-317.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Burkert S, Knoll N, Scholz U, Roigas J, Gralla O. Self-regulation following prostatectomy: Phase-specific self-efficacy beliefs for pelvic-floor exercise. Br J Health Psychol. 2012; 17: 273-293.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sacomori C, Cardoso FL, Porto IP, Negri NB. The development and psychometric evaluation of a self-efficacy scale for practicing pelvic floor exercises. Braz J Phys Ther. 2013; 17: 336-342.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Khan CM, Iida M, Stephens MAP, et al. Spousal support following knee surgery: Roles of self-efficacy and perceived emotional responsiveness. Rehabil Psychol. 2009; 54: 28-32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Benight CC, Bandura A. Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery: The role of perceived self-efficacy. Behav Res Ther. 2004; 42: 1129-1148.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schwarzer R, Knoll N. Functional roles of social support within the stress and coping process: A theoretical and empirical overview. Int J Psychol. 2007; 42: 243-252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Berkman LF, Glass T, Brissette I, Seeman TE. From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Soc Sci Med. 2000; 51: 843-857.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dunkel-Schetter C, Blasband DE, Feinstein LG, Herbert TB. Elements of supportive interactions: When are attempts to help effective? In: Spacapan S, Oskamp S, eds. Helping and being helped: Naturalistic studies. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1992: 83-114.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Giangrasso B, Casale S. Psychometric properties of the Medical Outcome Study Social Support Survey with a general population sample of undergraduate students. Soc Indic Res. 2014; 116: 185-197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB. Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS Med. 2010; 7: 1-20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. DiMatteo MR. Social support and patient adherence to medical treatment: A meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2004; 23: 207-218.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ochsner S, Knoll N, Stadler G, et al. Interacting effects of receiving social control and social support during smoking cessation. Ann Behav Med. 2015; 49: 141-146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hogan BE, Linden W, Najarian B. Social support interventions: Do they work? Clin Psychol Rev. 2002; 22: 381-440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bastone EC, Kerns RD. Effects of self-efficacy and perceived social support on recovery-related behaviors after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Ann Behav Med. 1995; 17: 324-330.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schwarzer R. Modeling health behavior change: How to predict and modify the adoption and maintenance of health behaviors. Appl Psychol-Int Rev. 2008; 57: 1-29.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ernsting A, Knoll N, Schneider M, Schwarzer R. The enabling effect of social support on vaccination uptake via self-efficacy and planning. Psychol Health Med. 2014; 20: 239-246.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schwarzer R, Dunkel-Schetter C, Weiner B, Woo G. Expectancies as mediators between recipient characteristics and social support intentions. In: Schwarzer R, ed. Self-efficacy: Thought control of action. Washington: Hemisphere; 1992: 65-87.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Shoji K, Bock J, Cieslak R, et al. Cultivating secondary traumatic growth among healthcare workers: The role of social support and self-efficacy. J Clin Psychol. 2014; 70: 831-846.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Knoll N, Wiedemann AU, Schultze M, Schrader M, Heckhausen J. Prostate cancer patients gradually advance goals for rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy: Applying a lines-of-defense model to rehabilitation. Psychol Aging. 2014; 29: 787-792.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Knoll N, Wiedemann AU, Schrader M, et al. Calibrating independence goals and partner support: Couples adjust to functional limitations after tumor surgery. Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2015; 7: 167-187.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Keller J, Burkert S, Wiedemann AU, et al. Individual and dyadic planning predicting pelvic floor exercise among prostate cancer survivors. Rehabil Psychol. 2015; 60: 222-231.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 5th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Burkert S, Scholz U, Gralla O, Roigas J, Knoll N. Dyadic planning of health-behavior change after prostatectomy: A randomized-controlled planning intervention. Soc Sci Med. 2011; 73: 783-792.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Schulz U, Schwarzer R. Social support in coping with illness: The Berlin Social Support Scales (BSSS). Diagnostica. 2003; 49: 73-82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wiedemann AU, Lippke S, Reuter T, et al. Prediction of stage transitions in fruit and vegetable intake. Health Educ Res. 2009; 24: 596-607.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hautzinger M. Die CES-D Skala: Ein Depressionsmessinstrument für Untersuchungen in der Allgemeinbevölkerung [The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population]. Diagnostica. 1988; 34: 167-173.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Karantanis E, Fynes M, Moore K, Stanton S. Comparison of the ICIQ-SF and 24-hour pad test with other measures for evaluating the severity of urodynamic stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2004; 15: 111-116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User’s Guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 1998-2012.

  35. Geiser C. Data analysis with Mplus. New York: Guilford Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cole DA, Maxwell SE. Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. J Abnorm Psychol. 2003; 112: 558-577.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Muthén LK, Muthén BO: Chi-square difference testing using the Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square. Available at http://www.statmodel.com/. Accessibility verified March 01, 2015.

  38. Hu L, Bentler PM. Evaluating model fit. In: Hoyle RH, ed. Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1995: 76-99.

    Google Scholar 

  39. MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM, Williams J. Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivar Behav Res. 2004; 39: 99-128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gray RE, Fitch M, Phillips C, Labrecque M, Fergus K. Managing the impact of illness: The experiences of men with prostate cancer and their spouses. J Health Psychol. 2000; 5: 531-548.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Bolger N, Amarel D. Effects of social support visibility on adjustment to stress: Experimental evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007; 92: 458-475.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lüscher J, Stadler G, Ochsner S, et al. Daily negative affect and smoking after a self-set quit attempt: The role of dyadic invisible social support in a daily diary study. Br J Health Psychol. 2015.

  43. Kuijer RG, Buunk BP, Ybema JF. Justice of give-and-take in the intimate relationship: When one partner of a couple is diagnosed with cancer. Pers Relat. 2001; 8: 75-92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Scholz U, Ochsner S, Hornung R, Knoll N. Does social support really help to eat a low-fat diet? Main effects and gender differences of received social support within the health action process approach. Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2013; 5: 270-290.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG; KN 937/3-1).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Division of Health Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, Habelschwerdter Allee 45, 14195, Berlin, Germany

    Diana Hilda Hohl Dipl-Psych, Nina Knoll PhD, Amelie Wiedemann PhD & Jan Keller MSc

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Urte Scholz PhD

  3. Department of Urology, Helios Klinikum Berlin-Buch, Berlin, Germany

    Mark Schrader MD

  4. Institute of Medical Psychology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Silke Burkert PhD

Authors
  1. Diana Hilda Hohl Dipl-Psych
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nina Knoll PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amelie Wiedemann PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jan Keller MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Urte Scholz PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mark Schrader MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Silke Burkert PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diana Hilda Hohl Dipl-Psych.

Ethics declarations

Authors’ Statement of Conflict of Interest and Adherence to Ethical Standards

Authors Hohl, Knoll, Wiedemann, Keller, Scholz, Schrader, and Burkert declare that they have no conflict of interest. All procedures, including the informed consent process, were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with them Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hohl, D.H., Knoll, N., Wiedemann, A. et al. Enabling or Cultivating? The Role of Prostate Cancer Patients’ Received Partner Support and Self-Efficacy in the Maintenance of Pelvic Floor Exercise Following Tumor Surgery. ann. behav. med. 50, 247–258 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-015-9748-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-015-9748-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation