The interplay of dyadic and individual planning of pelvic-floor exercise in prostate-cancer patients following radical prostatectomy
This study broadens the current understanding of the role of planning by focusing on the interplay between individual and dyadic planning (i.e. making plans about the target person’s behaviour together with a partner). Self-report data from N = 141 prostatectomy-patients and their partners were assessed at three times within 1 year post-surgery. Direct and indirect effects of dyadic and individual planning on patients’ pelvic-floor exercise (PFE) were tested. Proposed mediators were social support, social control, and action control. Cross-sectionally, the dyadic planning–PFE relationship was mediated by patients’ received support and partners’ provided social control. Longitudinally, mediators of dyadic planning were partners’ provided social control and support. Effects of individual planning on PFE were mediated by action control at baseline only. Also, at lower levels of individual planning, patients’ dyadic planning was more strongly associated with receipt of social control. Results underscore the importance of social factors in the planning process and its mechanisms in health-behaviour change.
KeywordsDyadic planning Social exchange processes Self-regulation Health-behaviour change Multiple mediation
- Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Arbuckle, J. L. (2009). AMOS 18 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
- Dunkel-Schetter, C., Blasband, D. E., Feinstein, L. G., & Herbert, T. B. (1992). Elements of supportive interactions: Where are attempts to help effective? In S. Spacapan & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Helping and being helped: Naturalistic studies (pp. 83–114). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Ferlay, J., Bray, F., Pisani, P., & Parkin, D. M. (2001). GLOBOCAN 2000: Cancer incidence, mortality, and prevalence worldwide, Version 1.0, IARC CancerBase No. 5. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer and World Health Organization, IARC Press.Google Scholar
- Glass, T. A. (2000). Psychosocial intervention. In L. F. Berkman & I. Kawachi (Eds.), Social epidemiology (pp. 267–305). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Hahlweg, K. (1996). Fragebogen zur Partnerschaftsdiagnostik [Relationship Questionnaire]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
- Hunter, K. F., Moore, K. N., & Glazener, C. M. A. (2007). Conservative management for prostatectomy urinary incontinence. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2, 1–56.Google Scholar
- Knoll, N., Burkert, S., Scholz, U., Roigas, J., & Gralla, O. (in press). The dual-effects model of social control revisited: Relationship satisfaction as a moderator. Anxiety, Stress & Coping. doi:10.1080/10615806.2011.584188.
- Knoll, N., Scholz, U., Burkert, S., Roigas, J., & Gralla, O. (2009b). Effects of received and mobilized support on recipients’ and providers’ self-efficacy beliefs: A one-year follow-up study with patients receiving radical prostatectomy and their spouses. International Journal of Psychology, 44, 129–137.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290–312). Washington DC: American Sociological Association.Google Scholar
- Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar