Dyadic interdependence of psychosocial outcomes among haematological cancer survivors and their support persons
This study aimed to explore the dyadic relationships between unmet need, depression, and anxiety in people diagnosed with haematological cancer and their support persons.
Adult survivors (18 years+) who had been diagnosed with a haematological cancer were recruited to a cross-sectional mailed survey via five state cancer registries in Australia. Participating survivors invited a support person to also complete a survey. Structural equation modelling was used to explore the relationships among survivor and support person self-reported depression, anxiety, and unmet needs.
Of the 4299 eligible haematological cancer survivors contacted by the registries, 1511 (35%) returned a completed survey as did 1004 support persons. There were 787 dyads with complete data. After adjusting for age, gender, rurality, cancer type, and whether the support person was a relative, positive correlations were found between survivor and support person scores for depression (p = 0.0029) and unmet needs (p < 0.001), but not anxiety scores (p = 0.075). Survivor unmet needs were significantly related to support person depression (p = 0.0036). Support person unmet needs were significantly related to a higher depression score for survivors (p = 0.0067). Greater support person unmet needs were significantly related to a higher anxiety score for survivors (p = 0.0083). Survivor unmet needs did not have a significant relationship to support person anxiety (p = 0.78).
Unmet needs may mediate the interdependence of psychosocial experiences for survivors and support persons, although a longitudinal study is required to confirm causality. Addressing unmet needs may be a potential target for improving outcomes for both groups.
KeywordsDyad Cancer Unmet needs Depression Anxiety Oncology
Survivor Unmet Needs Survey
Support Person Unmet Needs Survey
21-item Depression and Anxiety and Stress Scale
Accessibility and Remoteness Index of Australia
structural equation models
The authors are grateful for all the hard work and assistance of Mrs. Sally Whittaker, Ms. Della Roach, and the registry staff; Ms. Sandra Dowley and Ms. Clara Davis for data entry; Ms. Ally Logatchova, Dr. Emilie Cameron, Ms. Hannah Small, Ms. Lara Ryan, Mr. Scott Stronach, and Ms. Natalie Dodd for assistance with data cleaning. The authors would also like to acknowledge the time and effort provided by the survivors and support persons who took part in this research; the authors greatly appreciate their involvement, as without their assistance this research would not be possible.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. The authors have full control of all primary data and agree to allow the journal to review the data if requested.
Sources of funding
This grant no. 569290 was awarded through the Priority-driven Collaborative Cancer Research Scheme and co-funded by beyondblue and the Australian Government through Cancer Australia. It also received funding support from a Strategic Research Partnership Grant (CSR 11-02) from Cancer Council NSW to the Newcastle Cancer Control Collaborative (New-3C), and infrastructure funding from the University of Newcastle and Hunter Medical Research Institute. Christine Paul is supported by an NHMRC Career Development Fellowship (1061335). Mariko Cary is supported by an NHMRC Translating Research into Practice (TRIP) Fellowship.
- 1.Stewart B, Wild C (2014) World Cancer Report 2014. Lyon, International Agency for Research on Cancer & World Health OrganizationGoogle Scholar
- 12.Sanson-Fisher R, Carey M, Paul C (2009) editors. Measuring the unmet needs of those with cancer: a critical overview. Cancer Forum; The Cancer Council AustraliaGoogle Scholar
- 15.Cheng K, Wong W, Koh C (2015) Unmet needs mediate the relationship between symptoms and quality of life in breast cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer:1–9Google Scholar
- 16.Lazarus RS, Folkman S (1984) Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 27.Lovibond S, Lovibond P (1995) Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales (2nd edition). Sydney, Psychology Foundation MonographGoogle Scholar
- 28.Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2004) Rural, regional and remote health: a guide to remoteness classifications. CanberraGoogle Scholar
- 29.Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013) 1270.0.55.005. Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS): volume 5. Remoteness Structure, July 2011 [Internet]. Canberra [available from: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/1270.0.55.005July%202011?OpenDocument
- 41.National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) (2015) NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: distress management (version 3.2015)Google Scholar