Shelby L Langer, Joan M Romano, Michael Todd, Francis J Keefe, Karen L Syrjala, Jonathan B Bricker, John Burns, Niall Bolger, Laura S Porter
{"title":"Couple communication in cancer: A tale of two conceptual models.","authors":"Shelby L Langer, Joan M Romano, Michael Todd, Francis J Keefe, Karen L Syrjala, Jonathan B Bricker, John Burns, Niall Bolger, Laura S Porter","doi":"10.1037/hea0001396","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cancer poses significant challenges for patients and caregiving partners. Avoidant communication has been linked to poorer psychosocial adjustment to cancer. Two conceptual models have been proposed to account for this linkage: the social-cognitive processing and relationship intimacy models.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine the utility of these models in explaining patient and partner psychological and relationship adjustment on a day-to-day basis using ecological momentary assessment.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Patients with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer and their partners (286 dyads) were prompted twice daily for 14 days via smartphone to answer questions about communication with their partner, adjustment (psychological distress and relationship satisfaction), and hypothesized mediators (avoidant thoughts and intimacy). Data were collected from 2017 to 2020.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants responded to 92% of prompts and completed 91%. Results supported the relationship intimacy but not the social-cognitive processing model. On afternoons when participants (both patients and caregivers) held back or perceived avoidance or criticism from their partner, they reported less intimacy, as did their partners; this lowered intimacy, in turn, led to participants' (both patients' and caregivers') own lowered relationship satisfaction that evening and to patients' lowered relationship satisfaction through caregivers' lowered intimacy (one-tailed Bayesian <i>p</i>s < .025). When distress was the criterion, patients' holding back or perceived avoidance/criticism led to their own increased distress through their own decreased intimacy, and caregivers' holding back or perceived avoidance/criticism led to patients' increased distress through patients' lowered intimacy (one-tailed Bayesian <i>p</i>s < .005).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings offer implications for interventions designed to improve communication and enhance closeness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0001396","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Cancer poses significant challenges for patients and caregiving partners. Avoidant communication has been linked to poorer psychosocial adjustment to cancer. Two conceptual models have been proposed to account for this linkage: the social-cognitive processing and relationship intimacy models.
Objective: To examine the utility of these models in explaining patient and partner psychological and relationship adjustment on a day-to-day basis using ecological momentary assessment.
Method: Patients with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer and their partners (286 dyads) were prompted twice daily for 14 days via smartphone to answer questions about communication with their partner, adjustment (psychological distress and relationship satisfaction), and hypothesized mediators (avoidant thoughts and intimacy). Data were collected from 2017 to 2020.
Results: Participants responded to 92% of prompts and completed 91%. Results supported the relationship intimacy but not the social-cognitive processing model. On afternoons when participants (both patients and caregivers) held back or perceived avoidance or criticism from their partner, they reported less intimacy, as did their partners; this lowered intimacy, in turn, led to participants' (both patients' and caregivers') own lowered relationship satisfaction that evening and to patients' lowered relationship satisfaction through caregivers' lowered intimacy (one-tailed Bayesian ps < .025). When distress was the criterion, patients' holding back or perceived avoidance/criticism led to their own increased distress through their own decreased intimacy, and caregivers' holding back or perceived avoidance/criticism led to patients' increased distress through patients' lowered intimacy (one-tailed Bayesian ps < .005).
Conclusions: Findings offer implications for interventions designed to improve communication and enhance closeness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).