Annals of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 239–252 | Cite as

Cancer Distress Reduction with a Couple-Based Skills Training: A Randomized Controlled Trial

  • Nina Heinrichs
  • Tanja Zimmermann
  • Birgit Huber
  • Peter Herschbach
  • Daniel W. Russell
  • Donald H. Baucom
Original Article

Abstract

Background

There are few interventions for couples facing cancer.

Purpose

This study aims to investigate the utility of providing dyadic skills to these couples.

Methods

Woman recently diagnosed with breast or gynecological cancer and their partners were randomly assigned to either a couple-skills intervention (Side by Side) or to cancer education (Couples Control Program). Assessments with self-report and behavioral observation of both partners were conducted four times over 16 months.

Results

Multilevel analyses of data from 72 participating couples suggest that females receiving Side by Side showed larger reductions in fear of progression, and couples reported less avoidance in dealing with the cancer, more posttraumatic growth, and better relationship skills relative to the Couples Control Program. All differences favoring Side by Side disappeared by 16 months after the diagnosis.

Conclusion

Short-term changes in functioning may be improved by enhancing couples’ dyadic skills during acute medical treatment of the disease.

Keywords

Distress Fear of progression Communication Dyadic coping Stress 

Supplementary material

12160_2011_9314_MOESM1_ESM.doc (39 kb)
Appendix 1(DOC 39 kb)
12160_2011_9314_MOESM2_ESM.doc (40 kb)
Appendix 2(DOC 40 kb)
12160_2011_9314_MOESM3_ESM.doc (747 kb)
Fig. A1(DOC 747 kb)
12160_2011_9314_MOESM4_ESM.doc (35 kb)
Table A1(DOC 35 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Stanton AL, Revenson TA, Tennen H. Health psychology. Psychological adjustment to chronic disease. Annu Rev Psychol. 2007; 58: 564–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baanders AN, Heijmans MJ. The impact of chronic disease: The partner’s perspective. Fam Community Health. 2007; 30: 305–317.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hagedoorn M, Sanderman R, Bolks H, Tuinstra J, Coyne JC. Distress in couples coping with cancer: A meta-analysis and critical review of role and gender effects. Psychological Bulletin. 2008; 134: 1–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sullivan LJ, Baucom DH. Observational coding of relationship-schematic processing. J of Marital Fam Ther. 2005; 31: 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scott JL, Kayser K. A review of couple-based interventions for enhancing women’s sexual adjustment and body image after cancer. Cancer J. 2009; 15: 48–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Manne SL, Ostroff J, Norton TR, Fox K, Goldstein L, Grana G. Cancer-related relationship communication in couples coping with early stage breast cancer. Psycho-Oncol. 2006; 15: 234–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Badr H, Taylor CLC. Effects of relationship maintenance on psychological distress and dyadic adjustment among couples coping with lung cancer. Health Psychol. 2008; 27: 616–627.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baucom DH, Porter LS, Kirby JS, et al. A couple-based intervention for female breast cancer. Psycho-Oncol. 2009; 18: 276–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Manne S, Winkel G, Grana G, et al. Couple-focused group intervention for women with early stage breast cancer. J Consult Clin Psych. 2005; 73: 634–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Scott J, Halford K, Ward B. United we stand? The effects of a couple-coping intervention on adjustment to early stage breast or gynecological cancer. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2004; 72: 1122–1135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kayser K, Feldman BN, Borstelmann N, Daniels A. The effects of a randomized couple-based intervention on the quality of life of breast cancer patients and their partners. J Soc Work Res. 2010; 34: 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Epstein N, Baucom DH. Enhanced cognitive-behavioral therapy for couples: A contextual approach. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Karney BR, Bradbury TN. The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychol Bull. 1995; 118: 3–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bodenmann G, Pihet S, Kayser K. The relationship between dyadic coping and marital quality: A 2-year longitudinal study. J Fam Psychol. 2006; 20: 485–493.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Herschbach P, Marten-Mittag B, Henrich G. Revision und psychometrische Prüfung des Fragebogen zur Belastung von Krebskranken (FBK-R23). Zeitschrift für Med Psychol. 2003; 12: 1–8.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mehnert P, Herschbach P, Berg G, Henrich U, Koch U. Progredienzangst bei Brustkrebspatientinnen—Validierung der Kurzform des Progredienzangstfragebogens (PA-F-KF). Z Psychosom Med Psychother. 2006; 52: 274–288.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fawzy IF. Changes in the dealing with illness questionnaire. Unpublished data, included in the packet containing the instrument and scoring information for the “Dealing with Illness Inventory-Revise”. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA School of Medicine; 1992Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Namir S, Wolcott DL, Fawzy IF, Alumbaugh J. Coping with AIDS: Psychological and health implications. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1987; 17: 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tedeschi RG, Calhoun LG. The posttraumatic growth inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. J Trauma Stress. 1996; 9: 455–471.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Norton R. Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. J Marriage Fam. 1983; 45: 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spanier GB. Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. J Marriage Fam. 1976; 38: 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hahlweg K. Fragebogen zur Partnerschaftsdiagnostik (FPD). [Questionnaire for Couple Assessment]. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 1996.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bodenmann G. Dyadisches coping inventar [dyadic coping inventory]. Bern: Huber; 2008.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Heinrichs N, Zimmermann T. Bewältigung einer gynäkologischen Krebserkrankung in der Partnerschaft. Ein psychoonkologisches Behandlungsprogramm für Paare. [Coping with gynecological cancer in a relationship: A psycho-oncological treatment program for couples] Göttingen: Hogrefe; 2008.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zimmermann T, Heinrichs N, Scott JL. Cancope “Schritt für Schritt”: Die Effektivität eines partnerschaftlichen Unterstützungsprogramms bei Frauen mit Brust- oder gynäkologischen Krebserkrankungen. Verhaltenstherapie. 2006; 16: 247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Markman H, Stanley S, Blumberg S. Fighting for your marriage (revised and updated edition). San Francisco: Jossey Bass, Inc; 2001.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hahlweg K, Thurmaier F, Engl J, Eckert V., Markman HJ. Prävention von Beziehungsstörungen [Prevention of relationship disorders]. System Familie. 1993; 6: 89–100Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bodenmann G. Dyadic coping and the 3-phase-method in working with couples. In: VandeCreek L, ed. Innovations in clinical practice: Focus on group and family therapy. Sarasota: Professional Resources Press; 2007: 235–252.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD. SAS system for mixed models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute; 1996.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Snijders TA, Bosker RJ. Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage; 1999.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Singer JD. Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. 1998; 23: 323–355.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bodenmann G, Charvoz L, Cina A, Widmer, K. Prevention of marital distress by enhancing the coping skills of couples: 1-year follow-up-study. Swiss J. of Psych. 2001; 60: 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Behavioral Medicine 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nina Heinrichs
    • 1
  • Tanja Zimmermann
    • 2
  • Birgit Huber
    • 3
  • Peter Herschbach
    • 3
  • Daniel W. Russell
    • 4
  • Donald H. Baucom
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of BielefeldBielefeldGermany
  2. 2.Institute of PsychologyUniversity of BraunschweigBraunschweigGermany
  3. 3.Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Klinikum rechts der IsarTechnische Universität MünchenMunichGermany
  4. 4.Department of Human Development & Family StudiesIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  5. 5.University of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations