Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The dyadic relationship of benefit finding and its impact on quality of life in colorectal cancer survivor and spousal caregiver couples

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

Abstract

Objectives

To explore the benefit finding (BF) relationship between colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors and their spousal caregivers, and to discover the dyadic impact of BF on quality of life (QOL) in CRC survivor and spousal caregiver couples.

Methods

Conducted from May 2018 to December 2018, the study included 286 couples consisting of CRC survivors and their spousal caregivers. The study survey evaluated participants’ BF, anxiety, depression, and QOL. Data analysis methods included Pearson’s correlation, paired t test, and the actor-partner interdependence mediation model (APIMeM).

Results

CRC survivors and spousal caregivers reported comparable moderate to high BF experience (ranging from 68.9 to 80.8%). Moderate to high correlations were found between CRC survivors and their spousal caregivers in all of the paired BFs (including the overall BF scale and three factors) (all Ps < 0.001, r = 0.461–0.612). We found significant positive correlations of the same measures between dyads of CRC survivors and spousal caregivers (r = 0.331–0.612), including BFS-C (overall BF scale and three subscales), HADS-C (anxiety and depression), PCS, and MCS. To a certain degree, BF exerts an impact on couples’ QOL through the mediating effect of psychological distress (anxiety and depression).

Conclusions

The present study further confirms the dyadic interdependence between BF, anxiety, depression, and QOL in couples coping with CRC. In addition, the APIMeM findings may support the proposed mechanism, in that buffering against negative emotions (psychological distress) is an approach in which BF plays an important role, e.g., improves QOL, in the context of a stressful process.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 68(6):394–424. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Zhang L, Cao F, Zhang G, Shi L, Chen S, Zhang Z, Zhi W, Ma T (2019) Trends in and predictions of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in China from 1990 to 2025. Front Oncol 9:98. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.00098

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Kayser K, Watson LE, Andrade JT (2007) Cancer as a “we-disease”: examining the process of coping from a relational perspective. Fam Syst Health 25(4):404–418. https://doi.org/10.1037/1091-7527.25.4.404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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):1–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Northouse LL, Mood D, Templin T, Mellon S, George T (2000) Couples’ patterns of adjustment to colon cancer. Soc Sci Med 50(2):271–284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kayser K, Acquati C, Reese JB, Mark K, Wittmann D, Karam E (2018) A systematic review of dyadic studies examining relationship quality in couples facing colorectal cancer together. Psycho-oncology 27(1):13–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Li Q, Lin Y, Chen Y, Loke AY (2018) Mutual support and challenges among Chinese couples living with colorectal cancer: a qualitative study. Cancer Nurs 41(5):E50–E60. https://doi.org/10.1097/ncc.0000000000000553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lyons KS, Miller LM, McCarthy MJ (2016) The roles of dyadic appraisal and coping in couples with lung cancer. J Fam Nurs 22(4):493–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074840716675976

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Lyons KS, Jones KD, Bennett RM, Hiatt SO, Sayer AG (2013) Couple perceptions of fibromyalgia symptoms: the role of communication. Pain 154(11):2417–2426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2013.07.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Regan TW, Lambert SD, Kelly B, McElduff P, Girgis A, Kayser K, Turner J (2014) Cross-sectional relationships between dyadic coping and anxiety, depression, and relationship satisfaction for patients with prostate cancer and their spouses. Patient Educ Couns 96(1):120–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2014.04.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Folkman S (1997) Positive psychological states and coping with severe stress. Soc Sci Med 45(8):1207–1221

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Graça Pereira M, Figueiredo AP, Fincham FD (2012) Anxiety, depression, traumatic stress and quality of life in colorectal cancer after different treatments: a study with Portuguese patients and their partners. Eur J Oncol Nurs 16(3):227–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2011.06.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Segrin C, Badger TA, Sikorskii A, Pasvogel A, Weihs K, Lopez AM, Chalasani P (2020) Longitudinal dyadic interdependence in psychological distress among Latinas with breast cancer and their caregivers. Support Care Cancer 28(6):2735–2743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-05121-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Segrin C, Badger TA, Sikorskii A, Crane TE, Pace TWW (2018) A dyadic analysis of stress processes in Latinas with breast cancer and their family caregivers. Psycho-oncology 27(3):838–846. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Segrin C, Badger TA (2014) Psychological and physical distress are interdependent in breast cancer survivors and their partners. Psychol Health Med 19(6):716–723. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2013.871304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Künzler A, Nussbeck FW, Moser MT, Bodenmann G, Kayser K (2014) Individual and dyadic development of personal growth in couples coping with cancer. Support Care Cancer 22(1):53–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-013-1949-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jansen L, Hoffmeister M, Chang-Claude J, Brenner H, Arndt V (2011) Benefit finding and post-traumatic growth in long-term colorectal cancer survivors: prevalence, determinants, and associations with quality of life. Br J Cancer 105(8):1158–1165. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2011.335

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Rinaldis M, Pakenham KI, Lynch BM (2010) Relationships between quality of life and finding benefits in a diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Br J Psychol (London, England : 1953) 101(Pt 2):259–275. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712609x448676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim Y, Schulz R, Carver CS (2007) Benefit-finding in the cancer caregiving experience. Psychosom Med 69(3):283–291. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e3180417cf4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Antoni MH, Lehman JM, Kilbourn KM, Boyers AE, Culver JL, Alferi SM, Yount SE, McGregor BA, Arena PL, Harris SD, Price AA, Carver CS (2001) Cognitive-behavioral stress management intervention decreases the prevalence of depression and enhances benefit finding among women under treatment for early-stage breast cancer. Health Psychol 20(1):20–32

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Barskova T, Oesterreich R (2009) Post-traumatic growth in people living with a serious medical condition and its relations to physical and mental health: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil 31(21):1709–1733. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280902738441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Li Q, Lin Y, Xu Y, Zhou H, Yang L, Xu Y (2017) Construct validity of the 17-item benefit finding scale in Chinese cancer patients and their family caregivers: a cross-sectional study. Support Care Cancer 25(8):2387–2397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3644-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Folkman S (2008) The case for positive emotions in the stress process. Anxiety Stress Coping 21(1):3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800701740457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wang YLLYY, Cai L, Chen G, Tang L, Zhu X (2013) Reliability and validity of the benefit finding scale in women with breast cancer. Chin J Clin Psychol 21:410–412

    Google Scholar 

  25. Helgeson VS, Reynolds KA, Tomich PL (2006) A meta-analytic review of benefit finding and growth. J Consult Clin Psychol 74(5):797–816. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.74.5.797

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Zhu L, Ranchor AV, Helgeson VS, van der Lee M, Garssen B, Stewart RE, Sanderman R, Schroevers MJ (2018) Benefit finding trajectories in cancer patients receiving psychological care: predictors and relations to depressive and anxiety symptoms. Br J Health Psychol 23(2):238–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12283

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Llewellyn CD, Horney DJ, McGurk M, Weinman J, Herold J, Altman K, Smith HE (2013) Assessing the psychological predictors of benefit finding in patients with head and neck cancer. Psycho-oncology 22(1):97–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.2065

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Li Q, Xu Y, Zhou H, Loke AY (2015) Testing a preliminary live with love conceptual framework for cancer couple dyads: a mixed-methods study. Eur J Oncol Nurs 19(6):619–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2015.03.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Li Q, Lin Y, Zhou H, Xu Y, Yang L, Xu Y (2018) Factors moderating the mutual impact of benefit finding between Chinese patients with cancer and their family caregivers: a cross-sectional study. Psycho-oncology 27(10):2363–2373. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4833

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lin Y, Hu C, Xu Y, Zhao J, Li Q (2020) The mutual impact and moderating factors of quality of life between advanced cancer patients and their family caregivers. Support Care Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05351-x

  31. Paul C, Hall A, Oldmeadow C, Lynagh M, Campbell S, Bradstock K, Williamson A, Carey M, Sanson-Fisher R (2017) Dyadic interdependence of psychosocial outcomes among haematological cancer survivors and their support persons. Support Care Cancer 25(11):3339–3346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3751-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Segrin C, Badger TA, Harrington J (2012) Interdependent psychological quality of life in dyads adjusting to prostate cancer. Health Psychol 31(1):70–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. von Heymann-Horan A, Bidstrup PE (2019) Dyadic coping in specialized palliative care intervention for patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers: effects and mediation in a randomized controlled trial. Psycho-oncology 28(2):264–270. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ackerman RA, Kenny DA (2016) APIMPowerR: an interactive tool for Actor-Partner Interdependence Model power analysis [computer software]. https://robert-a-ackerman.shinyapps.io/APIMPowerRdis/.

  35. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP (1983) The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 67(6):361–370

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Li Q, Lin Y, Hu C, Xu Y, Zhou H, Yang L, Xu Y (2016) The Chinese version of hospital anxiety and depression scale: psychometric properties in Chinese cancer patients and their family caregivers. Eur J Oncol Nurs 25:16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2016.09.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ware JJ, Kosinski M, Keller SD (1996) A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 34(3):220–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Turner-Bowker DM, Gandek B (2002) How to score version 2 of the SF-12 health survey (with a supplement documenting version 1). QualityMetric Incorporated,

    Google Scholar 

  39. Portney LG, Watkins MP (2009) Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice, 3rd edn. Pearson/Prentice Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ledermann T, Macho S, Kenny DA (2011) Assessing mediation in dyadic data using the actor-partner interdependence model. Struct Equ Modeling Multidisciplinary J 18(4):595–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2011.607099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Cook WL, Kenny DA (2005) The actor–partner interdependence model: a model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. Int J Behav Dev 29(2):101–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  43. Emslie C, Browne S, Macleod U, Rozmovits L, Mitchell E, Ziebland S (2009) ‘Getting through’ not ‘going under’: a qualitative study of gender and spousal support after diagnosis with colorectal cancer. Soc Sci Med 68(6):1169–1175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.01.004

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Li Q, Chiang VC, Xu X, Xu Y, Loke AY (2015) The experiences of Chinese couples living with cancer: a focus group study. Cancer Nurs 38(5):383–394. https://doi.org/10.1097/ncc.0000000000000196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Li Q, Xu Y, Zhou H, Loke AY (2016) Re-affirmation of a preliminary live with love conceptual framework for cancer couple dyads: a couple-based complex intervention study. Eur J Oncol Nurs 20:215–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2015.09.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the support of the related hospital and are grateful to all participants for sharing their experience in this study. The authors are also grateful to two reviewers for their very helpful comments on a previous version of this manuscript.

Funding

Financial support for this study was provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81773297). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or manuscript preparation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wuxi Medical School, Jiangnan University, Wuxi, Jiangsu Province, China

    Yi Lin, Xingjuan Luo, Jieyu Li & Qiuping Li

  2. Wuxi People’s Hospital, Wuxi, Jiangsu Province, China

    Yinghua Xu

Authors
  1. Yi Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xingjuan Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jieyu Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yinghua Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Qiuping Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yinghua Xu or Qiuping Li.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

We affirm that the content of our paper has not been published elsewhere and it does not overlap or duplicate any of our published work.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 172 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin, Y., Luo, X., Li, J. et al. The dyadic relationship of benefit finding and its impact on quality of life in colorectal cancer survivor and spousal caregiver couples. Support Care Cancer 29, 1477–1486 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05602-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05602-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation