1. Please check and comment entries here.
Table of Contents

    Topic review

    Relationship Dynamics among BC Couples

    Subjects: Others
    View times: 7
    Submitted by: Marco Valente

    Definition

    This entry shows the dynamics that characterize couples during the breast cancer treatment pathway by underlining the areas that can predict a positive dyadic adaptation. More specifically, couples who maintain a resilient intimacy, build constructive mutual communication, adopt common dyadic coping strategies and provide mutual psychosocial support report higher levels of relationship functioning. These marriages are characterized by high levels of enmeshment and less rigidity in terms of rules and roles and flexible interaction patterns.

    1. Introduction

    In women, breast cancer is the most common disease in incidence (2.1 million new cases in 2018) and mortality (627,000 deaths in 2018) when compared to all cancers [1][2].

    In the past century, most women did not survive breast cancer [3], but, more recently, earlier diagnosis, effective screening programs and advanced medical treatments have been increasing the number of survivals in a 5-year rate [4].

    Traditionally, in the oncology literature, greater attention has been paid to the psychiatric, psychological and psychosocial impact of the pathology. Several studies analyzed the adaptive reaction strategies of patients at the medically defined points such as diagnosis disclosure, treatment consents, disease recurrence and palliative cares initiation [5][6][7].

    According to existing literature, the issue of breast cancer survivorship brings attention to the end of treatment perspective [8][9][10]. In this regard, Carter [11] analyzed longitudinally the daily lives experience of 25 women aged from 40 to 78 years who had survived breast cancer. Participants highlighted how the end of the treatment represents a crucial moment during which they can retrace the cancer pathway: interpreting and understanding the diagnosis, confronting the idea of mortality, rearranging their life priorities, coming to terms with the diagnosis, being able to move on and flashing back to the experience. Thus, according to Carter, ‘going through’ this pathway suggests a past, present, and future life after the diagnosis for those affected.

    From the early nineties, the awareness about the involvement of patients’ partners in the experience of cancer has become more evident [12][13]. Hence, a considerable body of studies has focused on the breast cancer psychological consequences for partners and other family members [14][15][16].

    This has gradually led to consider breast cancer as a ‘we-disease’ [14], which takes shape in the context of the relationship [17]. In short, literature reviews and meta-analysis support the idea that dyads may react as a unit rather than as individuals when coping with cancer, which influences the distress experienced by both partners [18][19] and might impact their relationship functioning.

    In this context, the dyadic approach has progressively entered the research studies’ design [20], and several studies in the breast cancer literature have investigated the correlations between a specific couple dimension and psychological adjustment [21][22][23].

    In this context, just a few reviews have focused on the impact of breast cancer on the couple’s relationship [15][18][24][25]. They mainly reported the areas of interaction of breast cancer and the patient’s personal relationships: (1) general interactional themes of patients secondary to breast cancer (e.g., social isolation; victimization; uncertainty); (2) the impact of social support, including the support from partners on patients’ psychological adjustment; (3) the impact of the disease on the parent–child relationship. In addition, these reviews discussed the impact of breast cancer on marital level of satisfaction in terms of couples’ sexual relations and communication. Despite the emerging evidence on the impact of breast cancer on patients and partners, no systematic review has been conducted specifically on the relationship dynamics that can have a major impact on the psychological distress experienced by couples.

    We used interdependence theory [26] and the investment model of commitment [27] to guide the development of the current study. Developed to clarify behaviors in dyadic relationships, the interdependence theory assumes that partners become interdependent over time through their interactions. The investment model implies that interdependence will be perceived as commitment, defined by partners’ desire to maintain the relationship through good and bad times [27].

    2. Discussion

    According to the breast cancer literature [28][29], diagnosis disclosure is experienced as a shock by couples mostly because of its terminal nature [30][31]. directly influence sexual functions and hormone levels [32]. Often women with breast cancer need endocrine adjuvant treatment that involves insufficient lubrication, dyspareunia and sexual arousal [33]. Resilient intimacy, as a unique dyadic process, is now considered a predictive factor for a couple’s positive psychological adaptation to cancer and other health adversities [34][35].

    Communication within the couple can undoubtedly impact how the dyad copes with treatments [36]. Furthermore, couples who can develop constructive mutual communication, explore potentially hurtful disclosures, respond to partners’ obstructive behaviors regarding cancer-related issues seem to have a more positive psychological adjustment to the breast cancer experience [34][37][38]. First, it is important to highlight that open and shared communication about potential fears, worries or needs allows couples to share the experience with higher levels of satisfaction [17] and more successful coping efforts [21]. Furthermore, with reference to the optimal matching model of social support, adopting a complementary communication consisting of a mutual sharing of the emotional aspects of the care pathway increase the possibility of better matching of needs and reciprocal support [39].

    In the oncological literature, the dimension of dyadic coping is defined as “the interplay between the stress signals of one partner and the coping reactions of the other, a genuine act of shared coping” [40] is considered as highly relevant for relationship outcomes in couples dealing with cancer. Couples deal with many potentially stressful challenges, such as emotional concerns and existential issues, medical treatment and its side effects, transformed sexuality and changed social relationships and roles during and after treatment. Longitudinal studies have shown how dyadic coping is identified as a protective factor for the couple’s relationship [40] and a predictor of a more positive couple’s psychological adaptation by protecting the dyad’s quality of life [25]. This appears to be in line with the results of this review showing how the couple’s ability to merge forces plays an important role in the dyadic coping strategies [30].

    As pointed out in several studies [29][41][42], psychosocial support plays a key role in the treatment pathway for breast cancer. Beyond a supporting couple relationship, at the emotional and instrumental levels, the informal network plays a crucial role as well. Receiving psychosocial support from social networks increases self-esteem, reduces the stress associated with the disease and improves adherence to medical treatments [41]. In particular, the increase in treatment adherence can be determined by improved cognitive functioning, a sense of self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, personal control, reduced emotional conflicts, distress and depressed mood [43].

    In addition to communication, coping strategies, intimacy and psychosocial support, religiosity has been identified as a relevant dimension in couples’ dealing with breast cancer. Evidence shows that religiosity can have a positive impact on patients’ lives consisting of a decrease in negative emotional states, levels of distress, mood symptoms and hopelessness and an improvement in well-being and illness adjustment by promoting reflection and reconceptualization of the situation [14][44][45]. Furthermore, in regards to the African American population, praying together and, more generally, taking care of their own spirituality seems to favor couples’ management of the stressful situation [46].

    Personality traits can be considered additional factors implicated in the relational functioning of couples facing the treatment pathway for breast cancer. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has identified distress as “a multifactorial unpleasant emotional experience of a psychological, cognitive, behavioral, emotional, social, and/or spiritual nature that may interfere with the ability to cope effectively with cancer, its physical symptoms, and its treatment” [47][48]. Results have shown that high levels of distress and impaired quality of life are negative prognostic factors on the couple’s ability to adapt. Literature in this field highlights how the use of coping strategies by the members of the couple, which are exclusively centered on the problem, seems to favor higher levels of well-being and better psychological adaptation [49][50].

    3. Conclusions

    According to existing literature, a high relationship functioning during or after cancer treatment may depend on how properly the dyad incorporates and psychologically elaborates cancer issues into their lives. This highlights the need to increase awareness and consider breast cancer as a dyadic affair with a significant impact on the relationship. Findings from this systematic review shed light on the significant impact of breast cancer on relational functioning, showing how breast cancer impacts relational dimensions and on the complex interplay between partners.

    Moreover, facing cancer as a ‘we-disease’ may result in a strengthening of the couple’s relationship. Indeed, considering breast cancer as a relational disease can facilitate the implementation of successful dyadic interventions aimed to develop or consolidate the relationship functioning. The positive implications of such an approach may be different: a greater awareness about the impact of the disease, the maintenance of a positive relationship functioning, the improvement of the compliance with care pathways, higher quality of life and better coping strategies in facing with disease fostering the process of psychological adaptation.

    To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review that brings together and analyzes almost 30 years of studies in this field, thus summarizing the relationship dynamics that characterize couples during the breast cancer pathway after the acute phase of treatments. Although the review was rigorous and wide-reaching, there were a few limitations. We only searched for publications mentioned in English in peer-reviewed journals, theses, dissertations, conference proceedings and trial registries were excluded. Moreover, the study samples were small and not always fully described, and most studies had a cross-sectional design.

    In conclusion, breast cancer strongly impacts the entire dyadic system. Clinicians and other health professionals can play a vital role in helping the couple to adjust to the psychological and psychosocial effects of breast cancer by adopting a collaborative approach and including dyads in the clinical consultations. Further research in this area should encourage new theoretical frameworks for the development of specific couple interventions to promote a positive psychological adjustment to the disease and, consequentially, to maintain the health of these relationships.

    The entry is from 10.3390/ijerph18147288

    References

    1. Barton, H.; Shatti, D.; Jones, C.A.; Sakthithasan, M.; Loughborough, W.W. Review of radiological screening programmes for breast, lung and pancreatic malignancy. Quant. Imaging Med. Surg. 2018, 8, 525–534.
    2. Bray, F.; Ferlay, J.; Soerjomataram, I.; Siegel, R.L.; Torre, L.A.; Jemal, A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018, 68, 394–424.
    3. Oeffinger, K.C.; Fontham, E.T.; Etzioni, R.; Herzig, A.; Michaelson, J.S.; Shih, Y.C.; Walter, L.C.; Church, T.R.; Flowers, C.R.; LaMonte, S.J.; et al. Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA 2015, 314, 1599–1614.
    4. Siegel, R.L.; Miller, K.D.; Goding Sauer, A.; Fedewa, S.A.; Butterly, L.F.; Anderson, J.C.; Cercek, A.; Smith, R.A.; Jemal, A. Colorectal cancer statistics. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2020, 70, 145–164.
    5. Carlsson, M.; Hamrin, E. Psychological and psychosocial aspects of breast cancer and breast cancer treatment. A literature review. Cancer Nurs. 1994, 17, 418–428.
    6. Given, C.W.; Given, B.A. Symptom management and psychosocial outcomes following cancer. Semin. Oncol. 2013, 40, 774–783.
    7. Ganz, P.A. Psychological and social aspects of breast cancer. Oncology 2008, 22, 642–653.
    8. Lethborg, C.E.; Kissane, D.; Burns, W.I.; Snyder, R. Cast Adrift the Experience of Completing Treatment Among Women with Early Stage Breast Cancer. J. Psychosoc. Oncol. 2000, 18, 73–90.
    9. Hewitt, M.; Greenfield, S.; Stovall, E. From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
    10. Fang, S.Y.; Lee, K.T. From Patient to Survivor: Women’s Experience with Breast Cancer after 5 Years. Cancer Nurs. 2016, 39, E40–E48.
    11. Carter, B.J. Long-term survivors of breast cancer. A qualitative descriptive study. Cancer Nurs. 1993, 16, 354–361.
    12. Zimmermann, T. Intimate Relationships Affected by Breast Cancer: Interventions for Couples. Breast Care 2015, 10, 102–108.
    13. Brandão, T.; Pedro, J.; Nunes, N.; Martins, M.V.; Costa, M.E.; Matos, P.M. Marital adjustment in the context of female breast cancer: A systematic review. J. Psychol. Soc. Behav. Dimens. Cancer 2017, 26, 2019–2029.
    14. Northouse, L.L.; Cracchiolo-Caraway, A.; Appel, C.P. Psychologic consequences of breast cancer on partner and family. Semin. Oncol. Nurs. 1991, 7, 216–223.
    15. Miaja, M.; Platas, A.; Martinez-Cannon, B.A. Psychological Impact of Alterations in Sexuality, Fertility, and Body Image in Young Breast Cancer Patients and Their Partners. Rev. Investig. Clin. 2017, 69, 204–209.
    16. Congard, A.; Christophe, V.; Duprez, C.; Baudry, A.S.; Antoine, P.; Lesur, A.; Loustalot, C.; Guillemet, C.; Leclercq, M.; Segura, C.; et al. The self-reported perceptions of the repercussions of the disease and its treatments on daily life for young women with breast cancer and their partners. J. Psychosoc. Oncol. 2019, 37, 50–68.
    17. Kayser, K.; Watson, L.E.; Andrade, J.T. Cancer as a we-disease: Examining the process of coping from a relational perspective. Fam. Syst. Health 2007, 25, 404.
    18. Hagedoorn, M.; Sanderman, R.; Bolks, H.N.; Tuinstra, J.; Coyne, J.C. Distress in couples coping with cancer: A meta-analysis and critical review of role and gender effects. Psychol. Bull. 2008, 134, 1–30.
    19. Kayser, K.; Acquati, C. The influence of relational mutuality on dyadic coping among couples facing breast cancer. J. Psychosoc. Oncol. 2019, 37, 194–212.
    20. O’Mahoney, J.M.; Carroll, R.A. The impact of breast cancer and its treatment on marital functioning. J. Clin. Psychol. Med. Settings 1997, 4, 397–415.
    21. Badr, H.; Carmack, C.L.; Kashy, D.A.; Cristofanilli, M.; Revenson, T.A. Dyadic Coping in Metastatic Breast Cancer. Health Psychol. 2010, 29, 169–180.
    22. Manne, S.L.; Siegel, S.; Kashy, D.; Heckman, C.J. Cancer-specific relationship awareness, relationship communication, and intimacy among couples coping with early-stage breast cancer. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 2014, 31, 314–334.
    23. Wittmann, D. Emotional and sexual health in cancer: Partner and relationship issues. Curr. Opin. Supportive Palliat. Care 2016, 10, 75–80.
    24. Wellisch, D.K. The psychologic impact of breast cancer on relationships. Semin. Oncol. Nurs. 1985, 1, 195–199.
    25. Staff, H.R.; Didymus, F.F.; Backhouse, S.H. The antecedents and outcomes of dyadic coping in close personal relationships: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. Anxiety Stress Coping 2017, 30, 498–520.
    26. Kelley, H.H.; Thibaut, J.W. Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1978.
    27. Rusbult, C.E.; Buunk, B.P. Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 1993, 10, 175–204.
    28. Manne, S.; Sherman, M.; Ross, S.; Ostroff, J.; Heyman, R.E.; Fox, K. Couples’ support-related communication, psychological distress, and relationship satisfaction among women with early stage breast cancer. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2004, 72, 660.
    29. Akram, M.; Iqbal, M.; Daniyal, M.; Khan, A.U. Awareness and current knowledge of breast cancer. Biol. Res. 2017, 50, 33.
    30. Chung, C.; Hwang, E. Couples’ experiences of breast cancer in Korea: A descriptive qualitative study. Cancer Nurs. 2012, 35, 211–220.
    31. Çömez, S.; Karayurt, Ö. We as Spouses Have Experienced a Real Disaster! A Qualitative Study of Women with Breast Cancer and Their Spouses. Cancer Nurs. 2016, 39, E19–E28.
    32. Baser, R.E.; Li, Y.; Carter, J. Psychometric validation of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) in cancer survivors. Cancer 2012, 118, 4606–4618.
    33. Ghizzani, A.; Bruni, S.; Luisi, S. The sex life of women surviving breast cancer. Gynecol. Endocrinol. 2018, 34, 821–825.
    34. Skerrett, K. Couple adjustment to the experience of breast cancer. Fam. Syst. Health 1998, 16, 281.
    35. Manne, S.; Badr, H. Intimacy and relationship processes in couples’ psychosocial adaptation to cancer. Cancer 2008, 112, 2541–2555.
    36. Villagran, M.; Canzona, M.R.; Ledford, C.J. The milspouse battle rhythm: Communicating resilience throughout the deployment cycle. Health Commun. 2013, 28, 778–788.
    37. Hoskins, C.N. Adjustment to breast cancer in couples. Psychol. Rep. 1995, 77, 435–454.
    38. Canzona, M.R.; Fisher, C.L.; Ledford, C. Perpetuating the cycle of silence: The intersection of uncertainty and sexual health communication among couples after breast cancer treatment. Supportive Care Cancer 2019, 27, 659–668.
    39. Cutrona, C.E.; Russell, D.W. Type of Social Support and Specific Stress: Toward a Theory of Optimal Matching; Social Support: An Interactional View; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1990; pp. 319–366.
    40. Bodenmann, G.; Cina, A. Stress and coping among stable-satisfied, stable-distressed and separated/divorced Swiss couples: A 5-year prospective longitudinal study. J. Divorce Remarriage 2006, 44, 71–89.
    41. Helgeson, V.S.; Cohen, S. Social support and adjustment to cancer: Reconciling descriptive, correlational, and intervention research. Health Psychol. 1996, 15, 135–148.
    42. Scholz, U.; Kliegel, M.; Luszczynska, A.; Knoll, N. Associations between received social support and positive and negative affect: Evidence for age differences from a daily-diary study. Eur. J. Ageing 2012, 9, 361–371.
    43. Zhao, H.; Lei, X.; Chavez-MacGregor, M.; He, W.; Niu, J.; Giordano, S.H. Adherence to Hormonal Therapy among Commercially Insured Breast Cancer Patients. J. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 36, 532.
    44. Morgan, P.D.; Fogel, J.; Rose, L.; Barnett, K.; Mock, V.; Davis, B.L.; Gaskins, M.; Brown-Davis, C. African American couples merging strengths to successfully cope with breast cancer. Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2005, 32, 979–987.
    45. Fradelos, E.C.; Latsou, D.; Mitsi, D.; Tsaras, K.; Lekka, D.; Lavdaniti, M.; Tzavella, F.; Papathanasiou, I.V. Assessment of the relation between religiosity, mental health, and psychological resilience in breast cancer patients. Contemp. Oncol. 2018, 22, 172–177.
    46. Sheppard, V.B.; Walker, R.; Phillips, W.; Hudson, V.; Xu, H.; Cabling, M.L.; He, J.; Sutton, A.L.; Hamilton, J. Spirituality in African-American Breast Cancer Patients: Implications for Clinical and Psychosocial Care. J. Relig. Health 2018, 57, 1918–1930.
    47. Kenny, D.A. Design Issues in Dyadic Research. In Review of Personality and Social Psychology: Research Methods in Personality and Social Psychology; Hendrick, C., Clark, M.S., Eds.; Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1990; Volume 11, pp. 164–184.
    48. Page, A.E.; Adler, N.E. Cancer Care for the Whole Patient: Meeting Psychosocial Health Needs; National Academies Press: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2008.
    49. Ben-Zur, H.; Gilbar, O.; Lev, S. Coping with breast cancer: Patient, spouse, and dyad models. Psychosom. Med. 2001, 63, 32–39.
    50. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Distress management. Clinical practice guidelines. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2003, 1, 344–374.
    More