Timothy Regan

A diagnosis of cancer and subsequent treatment are distressing not only for the person directly affected, but also for their intimate partner. The aim of this review is to (a) identify the main theoretical frameworks underpinning research addressing dyadic coping among couples affected by cancer, (b) summarise the evidence supporting the concepts described in these theoretical frameworks, and (c) examine the similarities and differences between these theoretical perspectives. A literature search was undertaken to identify descriptive studies published between 1990 and 2013 (English and French) that examined the interdependence of patients' and partners' coping, and the impact of coping on psychosocial outcomes. Data were extracted using a standardised form and reviewed by three of the authors. Twenty-three peer-reviewed manuscripts were identified, from which seven theoretical perspectives were derived: Relationship-Focused Coping, Transactional Model of Stress and Coping, S...

Objective
A diagnosis of cancer and subsequent treatment are distressing not only for the person directly affected, but also for their intimate partner. The aim of this review is to (a) identify the main theoretical frameworks underpinning research addressing dyadic coping among couples affected by cancer, (b) summarise the evidence supporting the concepts described in these theoretical frameworks, and (c) examine the similarities and differences between these theoretical perspectives.

Methods
A literature search was undertaken to identify descriptive studies published between 1990 and 2013 (English and French) that examined the interdependence of patients' and partners' coping, and the impact of coping on psychosocial outcomes. Data were extracted using a standardised form and reviewed by three of the authors.

Results
Twenty-three peer-reviewed manuscripts were identified, from which seven theoretical perspectives were derived: Relationship-Focused Coping, Transactional Model of Stress and Coping, Systemic-Transactional Model (STM) of dyadic coping, Collaborative Coping, Relationship Intimacy model, Communication models, and Coping Congruence. Although these theoretical perspectives emphasised different aspects of coping, a number of conceptual commonalities were noted.

Conclusion
This review identified key theoretical frameworks of dyadic coping used in cancer. Evidence indicates that responses within the couple that inhibit open communication between partner and patient are likely to have an adverse impact on psychosocial outcomes. Models that incorporate the interdependence of emotional responses and coping behaviours within couples have an emerging evidence base in psycho-oncology and may have greatest validity and clinical utility in this setting.

INTRODUCTION:
There is growing evidence that cancer affects couples as an interdependent system and that couple-based psychosocial interventions are efficacious in reducing distress and improving coping skills. However, adoption of a couples-focused approach into cancer care is limited. Previous research has shown that patients and partners hold differing views from health care professionals (HCPs) regarding their psychosocial needs, and HCPs from different disciplines also hold divergent views regarding couples' psychosocial needs. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of HCPs and couples on the provision of couple-focused psychosocial care in routine cancer services.

METHODS:
A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was undertaken with 20 HCPs (medical oncologists, nurses, psycho-oncology professionals) and 20 couples where one member had been diagnosed with cancer (breast, prostate, head/neck, bowel, multiple myeloma). Interviews were analysed using the framework approach.

RESULTS:
Three core themes were identified: "How Do Couples Cope with Cancer?" emphasised the positive and negative coping strategies used by couples, and highlighted that partners perceived a lack of engagement by HCPs. "What Is Couple-focused Psychosocial Care for People with Cancer?" described varying perspectives regarding the value of couple-focused psychosocial care and variation in the types of support couples need among HCPs and couples. Whereas most couples did not perceive a need for specialist couple-focused support and interventions, most HCPs felt couple-focused psychosocial care was necessary. "How Can Couple-Focused Psychosocial Care be Improved?" described couples' view of a need for better provision of information, and the importance of their relationship with oncology clinicians. HCPs identified a lack of confidence in responding to the emotional needs of couples, and barriers to providing psychosocial care, including challenges identifying distress (through screening) and referring distressed individuals/couples for specialist assessment.

CONCLUSIONS:
The three core themes revealed discrepancies about couple-focused psychosocial care between HCPs and couples, and HCPs from different professional backgrounds, and several barriers to the provision of psychosocial care for couples. Despite HCPs and couples acknowledging that a couple-focused approach to psycho-social support was potentially beneficial, the majority of couples did not feel they needed specific couple-focused interventions. These issues and recommendations for future research are discussed.

To examine the acceptability of the methods used to evaluate Coping-Together, one of the first self-directed coping skill intervention for couples facing cancer, and to collect preliminary efficacy data. Forty-two couples, randomized to a minimal ethical care (MEC) condition or to Coping-Together, completed a survey at baseline and 2 months after, a cost diary, and a process evaluation phone interview. One hundred seventy patients were referred to the study. However, 57 couples did not meet all eligibility criteria, and 51 refused study participation. On average, two to three couples were randomized per month, and on average it took 26 days to enrol a couple in the study. Two couples withdrew from MEC, none from Coping-Together. Only 44 % of the cost diaries were completed, and 55 % of patients and 60 % of partners found the surveys too long, and this despite the follow-up survey being five pages shorter than the baseline one. Trends in favor of Coping-Together were noted for both patients and their partners. This study identified the challenges of conducting dyadic research, and a number of suggestions were put forward for future studies, including to question whether distress screening was necessary and what kind of control group might be more appropriate in future studies.

OBJECTIVE: Recognition that patients and partners are both affected by a cancer diagnosis has led to increased interest in couple-based interventions. Although these interventions show promise for enhancing both patients' and partners' illness adjustment, couples' acceptance of these interventions is not well documented. This review explores these issues as reflected in uptake and attrition rates in published trials.

METHODS: A literature search identified 17 manuscripts reporting the uptake and attrition rates of couple-based interventions for couples facing cancer. The uptake (percentage of eligible couples randomised into a trial) and the attrition (percentage of couples who dropped out of a trial) rates were extracted by cancer type, cancer stage, intervention type, intervention focus and intervention delivery method.

RESULTS: Uptake and attrition rates ranged from 13.6% to 94.2% and 0% to 49.4%, respectively. Low uptake rates were noted for communication-focused interventions and those requiring both the patient and the partner to participate in the intervention simultaneously. Attrition was also high in the latter group. Uptake rates appeared slightly lower than individual-based interventions (58%-76%), as were attrition rates, although only for late stage cancer (~30% couple-based vs. ~69% individual-based). Common barriers to uptake included accessibility, competing priorities and illness severity.

CONCLUSIONS: The couple-based interventions had slightly lower uptake rates than what has been previously reported for individual-based interventions; however, lower attrition suggests patients and partners may be more inclined to complete an intervention when they participate together. The findings support the need to develop strategies to improve the delivery and acceptability of couple-based interventions in clinical practice.

Background:  With the growing recognition that patients and partners react to a cancer diagnosis as an interdependent system and increasing evidence that psychosocial interventions can be beneficial to both patients and partners, there has been a recent increase in the attention given to interventions that target couples. The aim of this systematic review was to identify existing couple-based interventions for patients with cancer and their partners and explore the efficacy of these interventions (including whether there is added value to target the couple versus individuals), the content and delivery of couple-based interventions, and to identify the key elements of couple-based interventions that promote improvement in adjustment to cancer diagnosis.

Method:  A systematic review of the cancer literature was performed to identify experimental and quasi-experimental couple-based interventions published between 1990 and 2011. To be considered for this review, studies had to test the efficacy of a psychosocial intervention for couples affected by cancer. Studies were excluded if they were published in a language other than English or French, focused on pharmacological, exercise, or dietary components combined with psychosocial components, or did not assess the impact of the intervention on psychological distress (e.g., depression, anxiety) or quality of life. Data were extracted using a standardised data collection form, and were analysed independently by three reviewers.

Results:  Of the 709 articles screened, 23 were included in this review. Couple-based interventions were most efficacious in improving couple communication, psychological distress, and relationship functioning. Interventions had a limited impact on physical distress and social adjustment. Most interventions focused on improving communication and increasing understanding of the cancer diagnosis within couples. Interventions were most often delivered by masters-level nurses or clinical psychologists. Although most were delivered in person, few were telephone-based. No difference in efficacy was noted based on mode of delivery. Factors associated with uptake and completion included symptom severity, available time and willingness to travel.

Conclusion:  Given effect sizes of couple-based interventions are similar to those reported in recent meta-analyses of patient-only and caregiver-only interventions (~d=.35-.45), it appears couple-based interventions for patients with cancer and their partners may be at least as efficacious as patient-only and caregiver-only interventions. Despite evidence that couple-based interventions enhance psycho-social adjustment for both patients and partners, these interventions have not yet been widely adopted. Although more work is needed to facilitate translation to routine practice, evidence reviewed is promising in reducing distress and improving coping and adjustment to a cancer diagnosis or to cancer symptoms.

A diagnosis of cancer and subsequent treatment are distressing not only for the person directly affected, but also for their intimate partner. The aim of this review is to (a) identify the main theoretical frameworks underpinning research addressing dyadic coping among couples affected by cancer, (b) summarise the evidence supporting the concepts described in these theoretical frameworks, and (c) examine the similarities and differences between these theoretical perspectives. A literature search was undertaken to identify descriptive studies published between 1990 and 2013 (English and French) that examined the interdependence of patients' and partners' coping, and the impact of coping on psychosocial outcomes. Data were extracted using a standardised form and reviewed by three of the authors. Twenty-three peer-reviewed manuscripts were identified, from which seven theoretical perspectives were derived: Relationship-Focused Coping, Transactional Model of Stress and Coping, S...