Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Dyadic and Longitudinal Investigation of Adjustment in Couples Coping with Multiple Sclerosis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Background

Multiple sclerosis (MS) can affect adjustment at both the individual and couple level.

Purpose

This study examined differences and associations between MS patient and spouse adjustment, and whether one partner’s adjustment predicts the other partner’s adjustment over time.

Methods

A total of 160 couples at Time 1 and 98 couples at Time 2 completed questionnaires.

Results

Mixed-model ANOVAs found that patients reported poorer adjustment than their spouse on a range of adjustment indicators and that positive affect and relationship satisfaction declined over time for both patients and spouses. Intraclass correlations found that patient and spouse scores on all adjustment indicators were related at Time 1. Multilevel modelling showed that one’s partner’s relationship satisfaction at Time 1 positively predicted one’s own relationship satisfaction at Time 2.

Conclusions

The findings indicate that a focus on the interpersonal nature of adjustment to MS may be beneficial for future research and practice.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pakenham KI. Multiple sclerosis. In: Kennedy P, ed. The Oxford handbook of rehabilitation psychology. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012: 211-234.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Pakenham KI, Finlayson M. Caregiving. In: Finlayson M, ed. Multiple sclerosis rehabilitation: From impairment to participation. New York: Taylor & Francis Publishing; 2013: 497-526.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Berg CA, Upchurch R. A developmental-contextual model of couples coping with chronic illness across the adult life span. Psychol Bull. 2007; 133: 920-954.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Starks H, Morris MA, Yorkston KM, Gray RF, Johnson KL. Being in- or out-of-sync: Couples’ adaptation to change in multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil. 2010; 32: 196-206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Simmons RD. Life issues in multiple sclerosis. Nat Rev Neurol. 2010; 6: 603-610.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Corry M, While A. The needs of carers with multiple sclerosis: A literature review. Scand J Caring Stud. 2009; 23: 569-588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Broderick CB. Understanding family process: Basics of family systems theory. New York: Sage; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rolland JS. Families, illness, and disability: An integrative treatment model. New York: Basic Books; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  9. McPheters JK, Sandberg JG. The relationship among couple relationship quality, physical functioning, and depression in multiple sclerosis patients and partners. Fam Syst Health. 2010; 28: 48-68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Steck B, Amsler F, Kappos L, Burgin D. Gender-specific differences in coping with chronic somatic disease (e.g. multiple sclerosis). Arch Women’s Ment Health. 2000; 3: 15-21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Pakenham KI. Couple coping and adjustment to multiple sclerosis in care receiver-carer dyads. Fam Relat Interdisc J Appl Fam Stud. 1998; 47: 269-277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Janssens ACJW, van Doorn PA, de Boer JB, et al. Anxiety and depression influence the relation between disability status and quality of life in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2003; 9: 794-801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Pakenham KI, Samios C. Couples coping with multiple sclerosis: A dyadic perspective on the roles of mindfulness and acceptance. J Behav Med. 2012; 36: 389-400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hagedoorn M, Sanderman R, Bolks HN, Tuinstra J, Coyne JC. Distress in couples coping with cancer: A meta-analysis and critical review of role and gender effects. Psychol Bull. 2008; 134: 1-30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Janssens ACJW, Buljevac D, van Doom PA, et al. Prediction of anxiety and distress following diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: A two-year longitudinal study. Mult Scler. 2006; 12: 794-801.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lewis MA, McBride CM, Pollack KI, et al. Understanding health behavior change among couples: An interdependence and communal coping approach. Soc Sci Med. 2006; 62: 1369-1380.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kenny DA, Kashy DA, Cook WL. Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Malec JF, Thompson JM. Relationship of the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory to functional outcome and cognitive performance measures. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 1994; 9: 1-15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pakenham KI. Coping with multiple sclerosis: Development of a measure. Psychol Health Med. 2001; 6: 411-428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gulick EE. Parsimony and model confirmation of the ADL Self-Care Scale for multiple sclerosis persons. Nurs Res. 1987; 36: 278-283.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Derogatis LR, Cleary PA. Confirmation of the dimensional structure of the SCL-90: A study in construct validation. J Clin Psychol. 1977; 33: 981-989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pavot W, Diener E. Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychol Assess. 1993; 5: 164-172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bradburn NM. The structure of psychological wellbeing. Oxford: Aldine; 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pakenham KI, Cox S. Development of the benefit finding in mulitple sclerosis (MS) caregiving scale: A longitudinal study of relations between benefit finding and adjustment. Br J Health Psychol. 2008; 13: 583-602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Horowitz M, Adler NE, Kegeles S. A scale for measuring the occurrence of positive states of mind: A preliminary report. Psychosom Med. 1988; 50: 477-483.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sharpley CF, Rogers HJ. Preliminary validation of the Abbreviated Spanier Dyadic Adjustment Scale: Some psychometric data regarding a screening test of marital adjustment. Educ Psychol Meas. 1984; 44: 1045-1049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pakenham KI, Dadds MR, Terry DJ. Relationship between adjustment to HIV and both social support and coping. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994; 62: 1194-1203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kashy DA, Donnellan MB. Conceptual and methodological issues in the analysis of data from dyads and groups. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  29. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Fredrickson BL. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. 2004; 359: 1367-1377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Charles ST, Reynolds ST, Gatz M. Age-related differences and change in positive and negative affect over 23 years. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001; 80: 136-151.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. McCabe MP, McDonald E. Perceptions of relationship and sexual satisfaction among people with multiple sclerosis and their partners. Sex Disabil. 2007; 25: 179-188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hagedoorn M, Dagan M, Puterman E, et al. Relationship satisfaction in couples confronted with colorectal cancer: The interplay of past and current spousal support. J Behav Med. 2011; 34: 288-297.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Badr H, Carmack CL, Kashy DA, Cristofanilli M. Dyadic coping in metastatic breast cancer. Health Psychol. 2010; 29: 169-180.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Northouse LL, Mood D, Templin T, Mellon S, George T. Couples’ patterns of adjustment to colon cancer. Soc Sci Med. 2000; 50: 271-284.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Pakenham KI, Tilling J, Cretchley J. Parenting difficulties and resources: The perspectives of parents with multiple sclerosis and their partners. Rehabil Psychol. 2012; 57: 52-60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Coles A, Deans J, Compaton A. Multiple sclerosis treatment trial precipitates divorce. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2001; 70: 135.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ledermann T, Macho S, Kenny DA. Assessing mediation in dyadic data using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. Struct Equ Model. 2011; 18: 595-612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hertzog C, Lindenberger U, Ghisletta P, von Oertzen T. On the power of multivariate latent growth curve models to detect correlated change. Psychol Methods. 2006; 11: 244-252.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors’ Statement of Conflict of Interest and Adherence to Ethical Standards

Authors Samios, Pakenham, and O'Brien declare that they have no conflict of interest. All procedures, including the informed consent process, were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Bond University, Robina, Gold Coast, Queensland, 4229, Australia

    Christina Samios PhD

  2. School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

    Kenneth I. Pakenham PhD & Jill O’Brien MPsych (Clin)

Authors
  1. Christina Samios PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kenneth I. Pakenham PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jill O’Brien MPsych (Clin)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christina Samios PhD.

Additional information

This study analyses data from a larger data set from which some of the data have been published. Only individual level data from the larger data set have previously been published. None of the previously published papers have tested the research questions or models proposed in the present paper. In addition, the publication of dyadic level data is unique to this paper and has not been published before.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Samios, C., Pakenham, K.I. & O’Brien, J. A Dyadic and Longitudinal Investigation of Adjustment in Couples Coping with Multiple Sclerosis. ann. behav. med. 49, 74–83 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-014-9633-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-014-9633-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation