Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Appraisals, perceived dyadic communication, and quality of life over time among couples coping with prostate cancer

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Little research has examined how prostate cancer patients’ and their spouses’ appraisals of illness and quality of life (QOL) interact with one another. This study examined the interdependent relationships between their appraisals of illness and QOL and if their perceived dyadic communication mediated these relationships.

Methods

We used the Actor-Partner Interdependence Mediation Model (APIMeM) approach to conduct a secondary analysis of longitudinal data from 124 prostate cancer patient-spouse dyads. We examined actor effects (each person’s influence on his/her own outcomes) and partner effects (each person’s influence on his/her partner’s outcomes). Appraisals of illness, perceived dyadic communication, and QOL were measured using Appraisal of Illness Scale, Lewis Mutuality and Interpersonal Sensitivity Scale, and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy General Scale, respectively. Analyses controlled for effects of prostate cancer symptoms and demographic factors.

Results

Among actor effects, spouses with more negative appraisals at baseline perceived worse dyadic communication 4 months later (p < .05) and worse QOL 8 months later (p < .001). Patients and spouses who perceived more dyadic communication at 4 months had better QOL at 8 months (p < .01). Among partner effects, there was only weak evidence for an association between patient perceived dyadic communication at 4 months and better spouse QOL at 8 months of follow-up (p = .05). No mediation effects were found.

Conclusions

Patients’ and spouses’ appraisals of the illness and their dyadic communication were associated with their long-term QOL. Interventions that reduce negative appraisals of illness and promote dyadic communication may improve QOL for both patients with prostate cancer and their spouses.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Cancer Society (2012) Cancer Facts & Figures 2012, Atlanta

  2. Baron RM, Kenny DA (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 51:1173–1182

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bodenmann G (2005) Dyadic coping and its signi!cant for marital functioning. In: Revenson T, Kayser K, Bodenmann G (eds) Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping. American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., pp. 33–50

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, Sarafian B, Linn E, Bonomi A, Silberman M, Yellen SB, Winicour P, Brannon J, et al. (1993) The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 11:570–579

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cook WL, Kenny DA (2005) The Actor-Partner Interdependence Model: a model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. Int J Behav Dev 29:101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Crook JM, Gomez-Iturriaga A, Wallace K, Ma C, Fung S, Alibhai S, Jewett M, Fleshner N (2011) Comparison of health-related quality of life 5 years after SPIRIT: surgical prostatectomy versus interstitial radiation intervention trial. J Clin Oncol 29:362–368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Eisemann N, Waldmann A, Rohde V, Katalinic A (2014) Quality of life in partners of patients with localised prostate cancer. Qual Life Res 23:1557–1568

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ezer H, Chachamovich JL, Chachamovich E (2011) Do men and their wives see it the same way? Congruence within Couples during the first year of prostate cancer. Psycho-Oncol 20:155–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Galbraith ME, Fink R, Wilkins GG (2011) Couples surviving prostate cancer: challenges in their lives and relationships. Semin Oncol Nurs 27:300–308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Green HJ, Wells DJN, Laakso L (2011) Coping in men with prostate cancer and their partners: a quantitative and qualitative study. Eur J Cancer Care 20:237–247

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hagedoorn M, Sanderman R, Bolks HN, Tuinstra J, Coyne JC (2008) Distress in couples coping with cancer: a meta-analysis and critical review of role and gender effects. Psychol Bull 134:1–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Harden JK, Sanda MG, Wei JT, Yarandi H, Hembroff L, Hardy J, Northouse LL (2013) Partners’ long-term appraisal of their caregiving experience, marital satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and quality of life 2 years after prostate cancer treatment. Cancer Nurs 36:104–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Helgeson VS, Novak SA, Lepore SJ, Eton DT (2004) Spouse social control efforts: relations to health behavior and well-being among men with prostate cancer. J Soc Pers Relat 21:53–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Waldron W, Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Ruhl J, Tatalovich Z, Cho H, Mariotto A, Eisner MP, Lewis DR, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Cronin KA, Edwards BK (2011) SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2008. National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2008/, posted to the SEER web site, 2011

  15. Hu L-t, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6:1–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kelley HH, Thibaut JW (1978) Interpersonal relations: a theory of interdependence. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kenny DA, Kashy DA, Cook WL (2006) Dyadic data analysis. The Guilford Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kershaw T, Mood D, Newth G, Ronis DL, Sanda M, Vaishampayan U, LL N (2008) Longitudinal analysis of a model to predict quality of life in prostate cancer patients and their spouses. Ann Behav Med 36:117–128

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Lazarus RS, Folkman S (1984) Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lewis FM (1996) Family home visitation study final report. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lewis FM (2010) The Family’s “Stuck Points” in adjusting to cancer. In: Holland JC, Breitbart WS, Jacobsen PB, Lederberg MS, Loscalzo MJ, McCorkle R (eds) Psycho-oncology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 511–515

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Macho S, Ledermann T (2011) Estimating, testing, and comparing specific effects in structural equation models: the phantom model approach. Psychol Methods 16:34–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Manne S, Badr H, Zaider T, Nelson C, Kissane D (2010) Cancer-related communication, relationship intimacy, and psychological distress among couples coping with localized prostate cancer. J Cancer Surviv 4:74–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. McCubbin HI, Thompson AI (1991) Family typologies and family assessment. In: McCubbin HI, Thompson AI (eds) Family assessment Inventories for research and practice. The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin

    Google Scholar 

  25. McCubbin MA, McCubbin HI (1991) Family stress theory and assessment. In: McCubbin HI, Thompson AI (eds) Family assessment Inventories for research and Practice. The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mood D, Song L, Kershaw T, Northouse L (2007) Assessing risk for distress in cancer patients and family caregivers. Oncol Nurs Forum 34:233

    Google Scholar 

  27. Muthen L, Muthen B (2015) Mplus user’s guide. Mplus User’s Guide. Sixth Edition, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  28. Northouse L, Kershaw T, Mood D, Schafenacker A (2005) Effects of a family intervention on the quality of life of women with recurrent breast cancer and their family caregivers. Psycho-Oncol 14:478–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Northouse LL, Mood D, Kershaw T, Schafenacker A, Mellon S, Walker J, Galvin E, Decker V (2002) Quality of Life of women with recurrent breast cancer and their family members. J Clin Oncol 20:4050–4064

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Northouse LL, Mood D, Montie JE, Sandler HM, Forman JD, Hussain M, Pienta K, Smith DC, Sanda MG, Kershaw T (2007) Living with prostate cancer: patients’ and spouses’ psychosocial status and quality of life. J Clin Oncol 25:4171–4177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Northouse LL, Mood DW, Schafenacker A, Kalemkerian G, Zalupski M, Lorusso P, Hayes DF, Hussain M, Ruckdeschel J, Fendrick AM, Trask PC, Ronis DL, Kershaw T (2013) Randomized clinical trial of a brief and extensive dyadic intervention for advanced cancer patients and their family caregivers. Psycho-Oncology 22:555–563

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Northouse LL, Mood DW, Schafenacker A, Montie JE, Sandler HM, Forman JD, Hussain M, Pienta KJ, Smith DC, Kershaw T (2007) Randomized clinical trial of a family intervention for prostate cancer patients and their spouses. Cancer 110:2809–2818

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Oberst M (1991) Appraisal of caregiving scale: Manual for use. Manual for Use. Wayne State University, Detroit, Appraisal of Caregiving Scale

    Google Scholar 

  34. Oberst M (1991) Appraisal of illness scale: Manual for use. Appraisal of Illness Scale: Manual for Use. Wayne State University, Detroit

    Google Scholar 

  35. Penedo FJ, Benedict C, Zhou ES, Rasheed M, Traeger L, Kava BR, Soloway M, Czaja S, Antoni MH (2013) Association of stress management skills and perceived stress with physical and emotional well-being among advanced prostrate cancer survivors following androgen deprivation treatment. J Clin Psychol Med Settings 20:25–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Prince-Paul M (2008) Relationships among communicative acts, social well-being, and spiritual well-being on the quality of life at the end of life in patients with cancer enrolled in hospice. J Palli Med 11:20–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Regan TW, Lambert SD, Kelly B, Falconier M, Kissane D, Levesque JV (2015) Couples coping with cancer: exploration of theoretical frameworks from dyadic studies. Psycho-oncology 24:1605–1617

  38. Rusbult C, Van Lange P (1996) Interdependence processes. In: Higgins E, Kruglanski A (eds) Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. The Guilford Press, New York, pp. pp. 564–pp. 596

    Google Scholar 

  39. Segrin C, Badger TA, Harrington J (2012) Interdependent psychological quality of life in dyads adjusting to prostate cancer health psychology: official journal of the Division of Health Psychology. Am Psychol Assoc 31:70–79

    Google Scholar 

  40. Song L, Northouse LL, Braun TM, Zhang L, Cimprich B, Ronis DL, Mood DW (2011) Assessing longitudinal quality of life in prostate cancer patients and their spouses: a multilevel modeling approach. Qual Life Res 20:371–381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Song L, Northouse LL, Zhang L, Braun TM, Cimprich B, Ronis DL, Mood DW (2010) Study of dyadic communication in couples managing prostate cancer: a longitudinal perspective. Psycho-Oncology 21(1):72–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Traa MJ, De Vries J Fau - Bodenmann G, Bodenmann G Fau - Den Oudsten BL, Den Oudsten BL (2015) Dyadic coping and relationship functioning in couples coping with cancer: a systematic review. Br J Health Psychol 20:85–114

  43. Wei JT, Dunn RL, Litwin MS, Sandler HM, Sanda MG (2000) Development and validation of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology 56:899–905

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study was funded in part by a research grant from National Cancer Institute (R01CA10738, PI: Northouse), a Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) (F31NR010990, PI: Song), and a KL2 grant to Dr. Song (KL2TR001109) sponsored by the University of North Carolina Clinical and Translational Sciences Award (CTSA) (UL1TR001111, PI: Runge) and postdoctoral fellowships (Ellis) funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute (5T32CA128582-07, PI: Eng) and the UNC Center for Health Equity Research (CHER) (PI: Corbie-Smith). The authors are grateful for Dr. Darlene W Mood’s (Wayne State University College of Nursing, Detroit, MI) conceptual contribution to this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Nursing, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA

    Lixin Song

  2. Gillings School of Global Public Health, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA

    Christine Rini

  3. School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA

    Katrina R. Ellis

  4. School of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

    Laurel L. Northouse

Authors
  1. Lixin Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christine Rini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katrina R. Ellis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Laurel L. Northouse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lixin Song.

Ethics declarations

RCT procedures were approved by Institutional Review Boards at the study sites.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Song, L., Rini, C., Ellis, K.R. et al. Appraisals, perceived dyadic communication, and quality of life over time among couples coping with prostate cancer. Support Care Cancer 24, 3757–3765 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-016-3188-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-016-3188-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation