Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 20, Issue 8, pp 1755–1762 | Cite as

Partner-assisted emotional disclosure for patients with GI cancer: 8-week follow-up and processes associated with change

  • Laura S. PorterEmail author
  • Francis J. Keefe
  • Donald H. Baucom
  • Herbert Hurwitz
  • Barry Moser
  • Emily Patterson
  • Hong Jin Kim
Original Article



We recently reported that a partner-assisted emotional disclosure intervention for gastrointestinal cancer led to improvements in relationship quality and intimacy for couples in which the patient initially reported higher levels of holding back from discussing cancer-related concerns. The purposes of the present study were to examine outcomes at 8-week follow-up and process variables that may influence treatment effects.


One hundred thirty couples were randomly assigned to either partner-assisted emotional disclosure or an education/support control condition. Participants completed measures of relationship quality, intimacy, and psychological distress before randomization, post-treatment, and 8 weeks later. Patients in the disclosure intervention completed measures of negative affect immediately following each treatment session, and their level of expressiveness during the sessions was rated by trained observers. Data were analyzed using multilevel modeling.


Among couples in which the patient initially reported higher levels of holding back, the disclosure intervention led to improvements in relationship quality and intimacy that were maintained at 8-weeks follow-up. High levels of patient expressiveness during the disclosure sessions were associated with improvements in relationship quality and intimacy, and high levels of patient negative affect immediately following the sessions were associated with reductions in psychological distress at the post-test assessment.


For couples in which the patient tends to hold back from discussing concerns, partner-assisted emotional disclosure is a beneficial intervention leading to improvements in relationship functioning that maintain over time. Future research is needed to examine methods of enhancing intervention effects, including encouraging patient expressiveness and negative affect during the sessions.


Gastrointestinal cancer Disclosure Couples Psychosocial intervention 



This study was funded by grant R01 CA100743 from the National Cancer Institute. The authors thank Susan Elinoff, Laura Harris, M.S.W., Regina Regan, M.S.W., Rebecca Shelby, Ph.D., Catherine Moser, Ph.D., Johanna Bendell, M.D., Leigh Howard, R.N., and the physicians and staff of the Duke GI Oncology Clinic for their assistance. They also extend their gratitude to all of the study participants for their time and effort.


  1. 1.
    Pennebaker J (1997) Writing about emotional experiences as a therapeutic process. Psychol Sci 8:162–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chelune GJ, Waring EM, Vosk BN, Sultan FE, Ogden JK (1984) Self-disclosure and its relationship to marital intimacy. J Clin Psychol 40:216–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Prager KJ (1995) The psychology of intimacy. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Porter LS, Keefe FJ, Baucom DH, Hurwitz H, Moser B, Patterson E, Kim HJ (2009) Partner-assisted emotional disclosure for patients with gastrointestinal cancer: results from a randomized controlled trial. Cancer 115:4326–4338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kazdin AE (2007) Mediators and mechanisms of change in psychotherapy research. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 3:1–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baucom DH, Sayers SL, Sher TG (1990) Supplementing behavioral marital therapy with cognitive restructuring and emotional expressiveness training: an outcome investigation. J Consult Clin Psychol 58:636–645PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smyth JM (1998) Written emotional expression: effect sizes, outcome types, and moderating variables. J Consult Clin Psychol 66:174–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pennebaker JW, Beall SK (1986) Confronting a traumatic event: toward an understanding of inhibition and disease. J Abnorm Psychol 95:274–281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Foa EB, Kozak MJ (1986) Emotional processing of fear: exposure to corrective information. Psychol Bull 99:20–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lang PJ (1985) The cognitive psychophysiology of emotion: fear and anxiety. In: Tuma AH, Maser J (eds) Anxiety and the anxiety disorders. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 131–170Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greenberg LS, Safran JD (1987) Emotion in psychotherapy: affect, cognition, and the process of change. Guilford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kelley JE, Lumley MA, Leisen JC (1997) Health effects of emotional disclosure in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Heal Psychol 16:331–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Norton R (1983) Measuring marital quality: a critical look at the dependent variable. J Marriage Fam 45:141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heyman RE, Sayers SL, Bellack AS (1994) Global marital satisfaction versus marital adjustment: an empirical comparison of three measures. J Fam Psychol 8:432–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miller RS, Lefcourt HM (1982) The assessment of social intimacy. J Pers Assess 46:514–518PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miller RS, Lefcourt HM (2000) Miller Social Intimacy Scale. In: Corcoran K, Fischer J (eds) Measures for clinical practice: a sourcebook, 3rd edn. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McNair DM, Lorr M, Droppleman LF (1992) EdIts manual: profile of mood states. In: EDITS manual: profile of mood states. Educational and Industrial Testing Service, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Anderson B (1992) Psychological interventions for cancer patients to enhance quality of life. J Consult Clin Psychol 60:552–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Antoni M, Lehman J, Kilbourn K, Boyers A, Culver J, Alferi S, Yount S, McGregor B, Arena P, Harris S, Price A, Carver C (2001) Cognitive behavioral stress management intervention decreases the prevalence of depression and enhances benefit finding among women under treatment for early-stage breast cancer. Heal Psychol 20:20–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pistrang N, Barker C (1995) The partner relationship in psychological response to breast cancer. Soc Sci Med 40:789–797PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Personal Soc Psychol 54:1063–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stover L, Guerney BG Jr, Ginsberg B, Schlein S (1977) The Self-Feeling Awarness Scale (SFAS). In: Guerney BG (ed) Relationship enhancement. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 371–377Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Burry-Stock JA, Shaw DG, Laurie C, Chisson BS (1996) Rater agreement indexes for performance assessment. Educ Psychol Meas 56:251–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Porter LS, Baucom DH, Patterson ES, Keefe FJ (in press) Reactions to a partner-assisted emotional disclosure for Gi cancer: direct observation of patient and partner communication journal of marital and family therapyGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kenny D, Kashy D, Cook W (2006) Dyadic data analysis. Guilford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Atkins D (2005) Using multilevel models to analyze couple and family treatment data: basic and advanced issues. J Fam Psychol 19:98–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Preacher KJ, Curran PJ, Bauer DJ (2006) Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. J Educ Behav Stat 31:437–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Steinhauser KE, Christakis NA, Clipp EC, McNeilly M, McIntyre L, Tulsky JA (2000) Factors considered important at the end of life by patients, family, physicians, and other care providers. JAMA 284:2476–2482PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kazdin AE (2006) Mechanisms of change in psychotherapy: advances, breakthroughs and cutting-edge research (do not yet exist). In: Bootzin RR, McKnight PE (eds) Strengthening research methodology: psychological measurement and evaluation. American Psychological Association, Washington, pp 77–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kraemer HC, Wilson GT, Fairburn CG, Agras WS (2002) Mediators and moderators of treatment effects in randomized clinical trials. Arch Gen Psychiatry 59:877–883PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura S. Porter
    • 1
    Email author
  • Francis J. Keefe
    • 1
  • Donald H. Baucom
    • 2
  • Herbert Hurwitz
    • 1
  • Barry Moser
    • 1
  • Emily Patterson
    • 1
  • Hong Jin Kim
    • 2
  1. 1.Duke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  2. 2.University of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations