Back to Journals » Breast Cancer: Targets and Therapy » Volume 12

Coping Assessment Tools in the Family Caregivers of Patients with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review

Authors Jahani Sayad Noveiri M, Shamsaei F , Khodaveisi M , Vanaki Z, Tapak L 

Received 3 December 2019

Accepted for publication 24 January 2020

Published 5 February 2020 Volume 2020:12 Pages 11—26

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/BCTT.S240928

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Professor Pranela Rameshwar



Marzieh Jahani Sayad Noveiri,1 Farshid Shamsaei,2 Masoud Khodaveisi,3 Zohreh Vanaki,4 Lily Tapak5

1Student Research Committee, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran; 2Mother and Child Care Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran; 3Chronic Diseases (Home Care) Research Center, Department of Community Health Nursing, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran; 4Department of Nursing, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran; 5Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Modeling of Noncommunicable Diseases Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran

Correspondence: Farshid Shamsaei
School of Nursing & Midwifery, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Shahid Fahmideh Bulv., Hamadan 65178, Iran
Tel +98-81-38381941
Fax +98-81-38381942
Email [email protected]

Background: Breast cancer is a problem that affects not only the individual’s health and quality of life, but also the functionality of the family system. Caregivers experience stress when their patients cannot cope with the symptoms of their disease. The stress experienced by caregivers gives rise to psychological and physical symptoms in them. This study seeks to present a complete set of tools for assessing coping in the spouses or caregivers of women with breast cancer and evaluate the various instruments developed within these lines of inquiry.
Methods: A search was carried out in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Medline, ProQuest, Scopus and Google Scholar and also in the reference lists of the key articles retrieved for any coping assessment instrument targeting family caregivers’ needs that had acceptable psychometric properties and was published until September 2019. The instruments used to assess coping in the spouses and caregivers of women with breast cancer were thus identified and their properties were described.
Results: Overall, 88 adaptation assessment tools related to family caregivers of patients with breast cancer were identified in 28 related articles. The tools examine different dimensions of adaptation such as satisfaction, stress, burden and needs of spouses and caregivers of patients with breast cancer.
Conclusion: Assessing family caregivers’ coping is essential for providing them with the appropriate sources of support. Although several instruments have been used to assess coping in the spouses and caregivers of women with breast cancer, the properties of these instruments have to be examined before they can be more widely implemented.

Keywords: coping, assessment tools, caregivers, breast cancer, family

Introduction

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in both developed and developing countries. The incidence of breast cancer is increasing in the developing world due to the increase in life expectancy and urbanization and the adoption of western lifestyles.1,2 Breast cancer affects 2.1 million women each year and is responsible for the greatest number of cancer-related deaths among women. In 2018, an estimated 627,000 women died of breast cancer, comprising approximately 15% of all cancer-related deaths among women. While breast cancer rates are higher among women in more developed regions, the rates are increasing globally in nearly every region.3

Breast cancer is a problem that affects not only the patients’ mental and physical integrity, but also their family caregivers’ health. Caregivers experience stress symptoms, such as depression, anxiety, fear, loneliness, psychosomatic symptoms and marital problems, and physical symptoms, such as fatigue, anorexia, indigestion, constipation, serious sleeping disorders and pain.4 Among the caregivers of breast cancer patients, spouses are usually the primary caregivers who take on more caregiving responsibilities than other family members; therefore, the spouses of breast cancer patients are subject to unique challenges that are different from those experienced by other family caregivers. For example, the commitment and obligations that form part of any marriage may heighten people’s assessment of their caregiving responsibilities. Some aspects of adaptation are also only applicable to spousal relationships (eg, sexual adaptation, household management and concerns about the children’s and family’s future).

Adaptation to breast cancer is not merely a personal issue of the patients, but it also directly affects the spouse and family members of the patient. Throughout the process of adaptation to breast cancer, patients and their caregivers need to manage cancer-related problems and distress as well as make arrangements in different life domains.5

Several reviews have been conducted on the caregivers of cancer survivors. For example, Goldswig et al found that the caregivers of cancer patients have a low social support and are not adequately capable of adapting to this enormous pressure.6 Li et al wrote in a review article that the wives of cancer patients have negative experiences of providing care to their patients, and this experience has adverse effects on the whole family.7 The wide spectrum of problems experienced by cancer patients mandates their examination from different aspects in the view of the spouses and caregivers of these patients. The problems experienced by caregivers are very similar in different societies, but there may be slight variations based on the culture and conditions governing each society, which require further scrutiny.8,9 For example, in Islamic and Arab countries, religious strategies are more widely used to adapt the patients and their caregivers to the disease.10

The caregivers of breast cancer patients tend to report reduced physical functioning, lower vitality, reduced immunity, increased physical symptoms and sleep problems. Compared to husbands with healthy wives, the husbands of breast cancer patients reported a significantly lower level of vitality and physical quality of life.10,11 Mortimer et al12 found that men who had lived longer with a spouse’s breast cancer showed a greater suppression of their cutaneous delayed-type hypersensitivity response.13

Breast cancer patients’ treatment and disease status can affect the husband’s or caregiver’s physical well-being. Compared to the husbands of healthy women, husbands with a wife undergoing chemotherapy and mastectomy reported more physical symptoms and lower physical quality of life.11 These findings suggest that the husbands’ physical well-being is also likely to deteriorate when their wife is being treated for a disease, and coping is crucial in these situations.

In the process of coping with cancer, caregivers need to manage their emotional distress and solve specific cancer-related problems (eg, treatment difficulties and reallocation of household tasks). Nurses should provide appropriate care to patients and their caregivers in order to assess their adaptation. Investigating adaptation to the disease among male caregivers can be helpful both for the men themselves and ultimately their wife with breast cancer. Specialized tools are needed to measure coping in the spouses of women with breast cancer. Given the clinical impact as well as the economic consequences of breast cancer on caregivers, knowing the overall experiences of caregivers in supporting and caring for patients can be very helpful. An important component of addressing this issue is the selection of the most appropriate tool for measuring the14 impact of breast cancer on caregivers.14 This systematic review was therefore carried out to identify any instruments used for assessing informal caregiving in breast cancer and describe their measurement properties in this population. Such information will guide clinicians in addressing the aspects of caregiving most in need of support in this group.

The objectives of this review include:

The first purpose of this systematic review to identify the instruments used to assess coping in spouse and family caregiver in breast cancer patients and describe their measurement properties if assessed in this population. Second, the various instruments developed within these lines of inquiry will be critically evaluated.

Methods

Search Strategy

Relevant literature was identified through a systematic electronic database search of Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO, ProQuest, PUBMED, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar since 1966–2019 using the keywords “Adaptation, Psychologic or Psychologic Adaptation or Psychological Adaptation or Coping Behavior or Behavior, Coping or Behaviors, Coping or Coping Behaviors or Coping Skills or Coping Skill or Skill, Coping or Skills, Coping or Behavior, Adaptive or Adaptive Behavior or Adaptive Behaviors or Behaviors, Adaptive” AND “Caregiver or Carers or Carer or Care Givers or Care Giver or Spouse Caregivers or Caregiver, Spouse or Caregivers, Spouse or Spouse Caregiver or Family Caregivers or Caregiver, Family or Caregivers, Family or Family Caregiver” AND “Breast Neoplasm or Breast Tumor or Breast Cancer” AND “Instrument or Tools or Scale or Questionnaire or Psychometric.” The search was limited to articles published in English. The reference list of each relevant study was searched for additional papers.

Eligibility Criteria

This systematic review was reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses15 guidelines.15 Eligible studies had to state in the objectives, methods or rationale that they were focused on coping assessment tools in the family caregivers of patients with breast cancer and include a self-administered assessment instrument. Instruments could be used to evaluate the negative (e.g., burden), positive (eg, satisfaction) or both aspects of caregiving, e.g., caregiver burden/distress, psychological status and mood or health-related quality of life. All original quantitative studies applying, testing or developing an instrument were eligible (e.g., cross-sectional, cohort, nonrandomized/randomized controlled trials, case studies). Studies with a mixed-methods design and interventional studies were included if quantitative data were available. Searches were restricted to studies published in English. Qualitative studies, magazines, news, electronic resources and reports, abstracts, were excluded, although their references were searched for relevant articles. Studies that lack the tools needed to address caregivers and insufficient information to evaluate in the original article were excluded.

Selection of Articles

Two reviewers (MJSN and FSH) independently performed the initial screening of the articles based on their type of publication and relevance to the scope of the review according to their title and abstract. Then, the full text of each potentially relevant article was screened to decide its eligibility. The level of inter-rater agreement was calculated using Cohen’s Kappa statistic, considering the following cut-off points:16 Slight agreement (≤0.20), fair agreement (0.21–0.40), moderate agreement (0.41–0.60), substantial agreement (0.61–0.80) and almost perfect agreement (≥0.81).

Data Extraction and Synthesis

One researcher extracted data from the included studies and the other authors checked for the accuracy and completeness of the data. Data extraction was performed using a pre-developed and standardized form to guarantee the consistency of the extracted data with regard to:

  1. Instrument characteristics: Name and abbreviation, original reference, life domain/construct, number of items, rating system and score range (total scale and/or subscale scores). When information was lacking, the original reference was searched;
  2. Country and study population in which the measurement properties of the instrument were assessed.
  3. Identification of the measurement properties of the instruments used to assess the caregivers of patients with breast cancer. According to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments17 checklist, the following measurement properties could be identified: 3.1. Validity through content validity, construct validity (ie, hypothesis testing, structural validity and cross-cultural validity), and criterion validity (ie, concurrent validity, predictive validity); 3.2. Reliability through internal consistency, reliability, measurement error; 3.3. Responsiveness through definitions of the measurement properties is described elsewhere.17

Methodological Quality of the Studies

The COSMIN checklist (http://www.cosmin.nl/) was used to evaluate the quality of the studies assessing the measurement properties of the instruments. The checklist includes nine boxes with standards for different measurement properties based on a 4-point rating scale (“excellent,” “good,” “fair” and “poor”) and a set of criteria.18 The quality of the studies was assessed independently by two reviewers (MJSN and FSH). In case of disagreement, a third reviewer was consulted. This procedure was also carried out to assess the quality of the measurement properties of the instruments. Finally, the general strengths and weaknesses of each instrument were assessed and included as summary tables.

Results

Study Selection

The literature search yielded a total of 2609 records. After the duplicates were removed, 983 records were screened through their title and abstract. After reviewing the abstracts, 143 articles were intensively reviewed. Subsequently, 28 articles were investigated. Based on the inclusion criteria, Eighty-eight coping tools were identified (Figure 1).

Figure 1 PRISMA flow diagram.

The exclusion criteria consisted of not using an instrument for assessing family caregivers and spouses or providing no information about the instrument, having a qualitative design or being irrelevant. Overall, 28 articles were included, all of which were published in English. Most articles were published after the year 2000 (26 articles), and ten of them (28 articles) were published over the last 5 years (ie, 2014–2019). The studies were conducted in America (n = 17), Europe (n = 5), Asia (n = 3) or Oceania (n = 2). The inter-rater agreement regarding study selection was significant (Kappa >0.76). Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

The results generally show that a variety of studies have used a range of tools to measure adjustment in spouses and caregivers of breast cancer patients, and there is no specific tool to assess adaptation in family caregivers of breast cancer patients, and in some cases compatibility tools have been used that are not relevant to this topic.

Instruments

Table 1 presents the list of accessed instruments and their characteristics based on their life domain/construct. Sixty-nine tools had been used in the various retrieved studies to assess coping dimensions in the caregivers of patients with breast cancer. None of the instruments were designed specifically for the caregivers of patients with breast cancer. Therefore, the researchers used a variety of instruments to measure coping in the families of patients with breast cancer. The tools included the Profile of Mood States, the Coping Responses Inventory, Snyder’s Screening for Marital and Relationship Discord and the COPE Scale; distress was measured by the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) and everyday functioning using the Psychosocial Adjustment (PSA) questionnaire; other tools included the Satisfaction With Life Scale, the Locke–Wallace Marital Adjustment Test, measures of burden, the Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (QLQ-C30), the Duke Health Profile, the Ways of Coping Checklist (WCC), depression was assessed using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), coping using the Ways of Coping Questionnaire, Social support using the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List, Symptom Check List – Revised (SCL 90-R), Psychological Adjustment to Illness Scale (PAIS), Quality of Life Spouses Scale (QOL-SP), Illness Intrusiveness Rating Scale (IIRS), Dyadic Coping Dyadic Coping Scale (DCS), Emotional wellbeing was measured. Quality of Life Spouses Scale (QOL-SP), Illness intrusiveness was measured with the Illness Intrusiveness Rating Scale (IIRS), Mutuality Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire (MPDQ), Sense of Coherence Scale, Spirituality Perspective Scale (SPS), Religious Coping Scale (RCOPE), The Health Index, the Impact of Event Scale, the Brief Index of Sexual Functioning.

Table 1 Caregiver Coping Instruments

Measuring the Properties of the Instruments

Studies have used a variety of tools to measure coping in spouses and caregivers of patients with breast cancer, indicating the absence of a single and specific tool for measuring this and in some studies has been used to evaluate the compatibility of different tools in one study. All the studies offered a complete description of the sample population’s characteristics and the country in which the instruments were applied as well as the methodological quality and quality of the measurement properties of the instruments. Internal consistency scores were reported for most of the instruments used and no information was given on criterion validity, structural validity, agreement or responsiveness. The inter-rater agreement was significant for the quality of the studies and the measurement properties of the instruments (Kappa>0.76).

Methodological Quality of the Studies

Only one of the studies mentioned the validity of the instruments used to measure couples’ satisfaction.19 Studies testing the hypothesis of the instruments were classified as “fair”7,9,1934 or “poor”.7,3545 Their common weaknesses included the failure to formulate hypotheses, describe the missing items or use a control measuring another construct. All the studies assessing internal consistency measured the tools’ Cronbach’s alpha.

Discussion

Twenty-eight were studied, and in 22 studies, the priority of the target population was with the spouses of women with breast cancer. In each of these studies, different tools and several tools have been used to assess adaptation in spouses and family caregivers of patients with breast cancer. An important and remarkable issue in this study was the lack of specific tools for assessing coping in spouses and family caregivers of patients with breast cancer, which makes it difficult to conduct a detailed study and research.

The caregiving and spouse experience is a complex phenomenon that affects all the aspects of life. While the number of items in each domain differed in the different instruments, the instruments had many items in common. Since most of the questionnaires underwent some type of statistical testing to remove the non-statistically significant items, these domains appear to be critical for assessing the caregiving experience. Also, the experience of men living with a wife with breast cancer and cancer patient caregivers is very different and affects all the aspects of their life. Therefore, these instruments must be sensitive to the changes in the caregiver’s and patient’s status over time. Many of the instruments covered in this review had not adequately addressed this issue. The benefits of the existing tools include the innovative use of non-specialized tools for assessing the compatibility and shortage of these tools, and of course this lack of gauging of all aspects of adaptability has led researchers to achieve their research goal using several unrelated tools in the research.

Despite the 30 years of research about coping in the caregivers of breast cancer patients, we still know little about whether administering a caregiver questionnaire by itself in clinical settings has an impact on the caregiver or the patient.

Studying the available tools showed that they were not specifically designed for the family caregivers/husbands of patients with breast cancer and measured only one of the issues and needs of these individuals; meanwhile, the spouses of breast cancer patients have multi-dimensional problems. The next issue was the cultural incompatibility of the tools and their categories, which many scholars have admitted could endanger the credibility of the questionnaire. Health status is affected by social, educational, occupational, cultural and environmental conditions and these conditions should not be ignored.46 The cultural and social factors affect the attitudes and expectations of the family members; moreover, the care conditions for different patients cannot be equally interpreted or measured by the same tool. The concept of compatibility should, therefore, be investigated in different environments and cultures and standard tools should be developed based on this concept.

Another important point is that most of the existing questionnaires were not based on a qualitative study, while qualitative studies can offer rich data, new insights and the lived experiences of individuals in a natural setting and consequently reveal the hidden angles of the concepts in question. Another major constraint mentioned was the translation of the tools. With literal or word-for-word translations, semantic differences in the combination of words and phrases or interpretations from a viewpoint due to different cultural norms are inevitable. The cultural validity and applied value of such tools are therefore low. A secondary approach is thus proposed, and new tools should be designed precisely based on empirical data and in compatibility with the social contexts studied. All structures and structures47 are extracted accurately and precisely. Then, the questionnaires are formulated_ENREF_48.48

In addition to the changes in the health care marketplace, another truth is that, nowadays, more family members and friends are caring for chronically ill patients at home.4952 A challenge commonly experienced by all health care professionals is to keep in mind that these caregivers are also potential patients who need and deserve attention and care. The message is that care teams and health care professionals need to care for both the patients and their caregivers. Time and financial constraints already stretch most health professionals to the limit, which is why modifying clinical assessment tools and conducting studies about caregiver interventions are critical, because they help professionals learn when and how to intervene and assist the overly burdened caregivers of their patients.

This area of research is in need of more focused work, and most of the instruments examined in this review were limited by the fact that they had different patient populations.

Since the patient’s spouse has been introduced as the best source of caregiving for cancer patients, their experiences can be used to build a suitable tool for monitoring patient compliance. The review of literature showed that, in spite of the high prevalence of cancer, there are no suitable tools for assessing coping in the spouses of patients with breast cancer. The design and construction of a suitable tool for achieving the said goal are therefore crucial. Nurses can help examine and recognize the needs of patients. Such tool must be specific to the spouses of patients with breast cancer and its items must be extracted based on the experiences of the patients’ spouses and the social and cultural factors specific to these patients and their family. With the design of such tool, one can hope that effective measures will be taken to help reconcile breast cancer patients’ spouses and the treatment team.

Conclusion

The results of this review suggest that there is not a single specific tool for assessing coping in the spouses and caregivers of patients with breast cancer, and the use of diverse tools for this purpose may reduce the accuracy of research, and using non-specialized tools will also fail to address the specific issues experienced by this group of caregivers. Therefore, further research needs to be conducted on the design of tools to assess coping in this group of caregivers.

Abbreviations

PRISMA, Reviews and Meta-Analyses; COSMIN, Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments; BSI, Brief Symptom Inventory; PSA, Psychosocial questionnaire; QLQ-C30, Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30; WCC, Ways of Coping Checklist; CES-D, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; SCL 90-R, Symptom Check List – Revised; PAIS, Psychological Adjustment to Illness Scale; QOL-SP, Quality of Life Spouses Scale; IIRS, Illness Intrusiveness Rating Scale; DCS, Dyadic Coping Dyadic Coping Scale; QOL-SP, Quality of Life Spouses Scale; MPDQ, Mutuality Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire; SOC, Sense of Coherence Scale; SPS, Spirituality Perspective Scale; RCOPE, Religious Coping Scale.

Data Sharing Statement

All data generated for this study are included in the article.

Acknowledgments

This article results from a PhD thesis supported by Hamadan University of Medical Sciences. The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by vice chancellor of research and technology of Hamadan University of Medical Sciences.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to data analysis, drafting and revising the article, gave final approval of the version to be published, and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Funding

This work was supported by Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran No. 96030214356.

Disclosure

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

1. DeSantis CE, Ma J, Gaudet MM, et al. Breast cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(6):438–451. doi:10.3322/caac.21583

2. Momenimovahed Z, Salehiniya H. epidemiological characteristics of and risk factors for breast cancer in the world. Breast Cancer. 2019;11:151.

3. World Health Organization. Breast cancer: prevention and control. Available from: http://www.who.int/cancer/detection/breastcancer/en/index. Accessed January 25, 2020.

4. Karabulutlu EY. Coping with stress of family caregivers of cancer patients in Turkey. Asia-Pac J Oncol Nurs. 2014;1(1):55. doi:10.4103/2347-5625.135822

5. PDQ Supportive and Palliative Care Editorial Board. Adjustment to Cancer: Anxiety and Distress (PDQ®): Patient Version. 2019 Jul 9. In: PDQ Cancer Information Summaries [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): National Cancer Institute (US); 2002. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK65886/. Accessed January 30, 2020.

6. Goldzweig G, Merims S, Ganon R, Peretz T, Altman A, Baider L. Informal caregiving to older cancer patients: preliminary research outcomes and implications. Ann Oncol J. 2013;24(10):2635–2640. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdt250

7. Li QP, Mak YW, Loke AY. Spouses’ experience of caregiving for cancer patients: a literature review. Int Nurs Rev. 2013;60(2):178–187. doi:10.1111/inr.2013.60.issue-2

8. Weitzner MA, Jacobsen PB, Wagner H, Friedland J, Cox C. The Caregiver Quality of Life Index-Cancer (CQOLC) scale: development and validation of an instrument to measure quality of life of the family caregiver of patients with cancer. Qual Life Res J. 1999;8(1–2):55–63. doi:10.1023/A:1026407010614

9. Khanjari S, Oskouie F, Langius-Eklof A. Lower sense of coherence, negative religious coping, and disease severity as indicators of a decrease in quality of life in Iranian family caregivers of relatives with breast cancer during the first 6 months after diagnosis. Cancer Nurs J. 2012;35(2):148–156. doi:10.1097/NCC.0b013e31821f1dda

10. Elsheshtawy EA, Abo-Elez WF, Ashour HS, Farouk O, El Zaafarany MI. Coping strategies in egyptian ladies with breast cancer. Breast Cancer J. 2014;8:97–102.

11. Moreira H, Canavarro MC. Psychosocial adjustment and marital intimacy among partners of patients with breast cancer: a comparison study with partners of healthy women. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2013;31(3):282–304. doi:10.1080/07347332.2013.778934

12. Wagner CD, Bigatti SM, Storniolo AM. Quality of life of husbands of women with breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology. 2006;15(2):109–120. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1611

13. Mortimer JSB, Sephton SE, Kimerling R, Butler L, Bernstein AS, Spiegel D. Chronic stress, depression and immunity in spouses of metastatic breast cancer patients. Clin Psycholo. 2005;9(2):59–63. doi:10.1080/13284200500221094

14. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012

15. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLOS Med J. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

16. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. biometrics. 1977;33:159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310

17. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737–745. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006

18. Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147–1157. doi:10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3

19. Yeung NCY Adjustment to caregiving among husbands of women with breast cancer in China: application of the stress and coping model [Ph.D.]. Ann Arbor, University of Houston; 2015.

20. Robbins ML, Wright RC, María López A, Weihs K. Interpersonal positive reframing in the daily lives of couples coping with breast cancer. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2019;37(2):160–177. doi:10.1080/07347332.2018.1555198

21. Kayser K, Acquati C. The influence of relational mutuality on dyadic coping among couples facing breast cancer. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2019;37(2):194–212. doi:10.1080/07347332.2019.1566809

22. Dalton WTP, Nelson DVP, Brobst JBP, Lindsay JEP, Friedman LCP. Psychosocial variables associated with husbands’ adjustment three months following wives’ diagnosis of breast cancer. J Cancer Educ. 2007;22(4):245–249. doi:10.1007/BF03174124

23. Robbins ML A social interaction analysis of the daily conversations of couples coping with breast cancer [Ph.D.]. Ann Arbor, The University of Arizona; 2012. doi:10.1094/PDIS-11-11-0999-PDN

24. Ben-Zur H, Gilbar O, Lev S. Coping with breast cancer: patient, spouse, and dyad models. Psychosom Med. 2001;63(1):32–39. doi:10.1097/00006842-200101000-00004

25. Bigatti SM, Wagner CD, Lydon-Lam JR, Steiner JL, Miller KD. Depression in husbands of breast cancer patients: relationships to coping and social support. Supp Care Cancer J. 2011;19(4):455–466. doi:10.1007/s00520-010-0835-8

26. Bigatti SM, Brown LF, Steiner JL, Miller KD. Breast cancer in a wife: how husbands cope and how well it works. Cancer Nurs J. 2011;34(3):193–201. doi:10.1097/NCC.0b013e3181ef094c

27. Carter RE, Carter CA, Siliunas M. Marital adaptation and interaction of couples after a mastectomy. J Psychosoc Oncol. 1993;11(2):69–82. doi:10.1300/J077V11N02_04

28. Feldman B, Broussard CA. The influence of relational factors on men’s adjustment to their partners’ newly-diagnosed breast cancer. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2005;23(2–3):23–43. doi:10.1300/J077v23n02_03

29. Feldman BN, Broussard CA. Men’s adjustment to their partners’ breast cancer: a dyadic coping perspective. Health Soc Work. 2006;31(2):117–127. doi:10.1093/hsw/31.2.117

30. Kershaw T, Northouse L, Kritpracha C, Schafenacker A, Mood D. Coping strategies and quality of life in women with advanced breast cancer and their family caregivers. Psychol Health. 2004;19(2):139–155. doi:10.1080/08870440310001652687

31. Otto AK, Laurenceau JP, Siegel SD, Belcher AJ. Capitalizing on everyday positive events uniquely predicts daily intimacy and well-being in couples coping with breast cancer. J Family Psychol. 2015;29(1):69–79. doi:10.1037/fam0000042

32. Robbins ML, Mehl MR, Smith HL, Weihs KL. Linguistic indicators of patient, couple, and family adjustment following breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology. 2013;22(7):1501–1508. doi:10.1002/pon.3161

33. Scott JL, Halford WK, Ward BG. United we stand? The effects of a couple-coping intervention on adjustment to early stage breast or gynecological cancer. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2004;72(6):1122. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.72.6.1122

34. Northouse LL, Templin T, Mood D, Oberst M. Couples’ adjustment to breast cancer and benign breast disease: A longitudinal analysis. Psycho‐Oncology. 1998;7(1):37–48.

35. Bonnaud-Antignac A, Hardouin J-B, Leger J, Dravet F, Sebille V. Quality of life and coping of women treated for breast cancer and their caregiver. What are the interactions? J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2012;19(3):320–328. doi:10.1007/s10880-012-9300-9

36. Jennifer Harkness H, Shields CG, Rousseau SL. Disengaging communication in later-life couples coping with breast cancer. Families Syst Health J. 2003;21(2):145. doi:10.1037/1091-7527.21.2.145

37. Karan A, Wright RC, Robbins ML. Everyday emotion word and personal pronoun use reflects dyadic adjustment among couples coping with breast cancer. Pers Relatsh. 2017;24(1):36–48. doi:10.1111/pere.2017.24.issue-1

38. Manne S, Kashy DA, Siegel S, Myers Virtue S, Heckman C, Ryan D. Unsupportive partner behaviors, social-cognitive processing, and psychological outcomes in couples coping with early stage breast cancer. J Fam Psychol Journal. 2014;28(2):214–224. doi:10.1037/a0036053

39. Nikoletti S, Kristjanson LJ, Tataryn D, McPhee I, Burt L. Information needs and coping styles of primary family caregivers of women following breast cancer surgery. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2003;30:987–996. doi:10.1188/03.ONF.987-996

40. Northouse LL, Dorris G, Charron-Moore C. Factors affecting couples’ adjustment to recurrent breast cancer. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41(1):69–76. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(94)00302-A

41. Robbins ML, Lopez AM, Weihs KL, Mehl MR. Cancer conversations in context: naturalistic observation of couples coping with breast cancer. J Family Psychol. 2014;28(3):380–390. doi:10.1037/a0036458

42. Rottmann N, Hansen DG, Larsen PV, et al. Dyadic coping within couples dealing with breast cancer: A longitudinal, population-based study. Health Psychol. 2015;34(5):486–495. doi:10.1037/hea0000218

43. Baumstarck K, Alessandrini M, Hamidou Z, Auquier P, Leroy T, Boyer L. Assessment of coping: a new french four-factor structure of the brief COPE inventory. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):8. doi:10.1186/s12955-016-0581-9

44. Ben-Zur H. Your coping strategy and my distress: inter-spouse perceptions of coping and adjustment among breast cancer patients and their spouses. Families Syst Health. 2001;19(1):83–94. doi:10.1037/h0089465

45. Robbins ML, Karan A, López AM, Weihs KL. Naturalistically observing noncancer conversations among couples coping with breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology. 2018;27(9):2206–2213. doi:10.1002/pon.4797

46. Ochieng BM. Factors affecting choice of a healthy lifestyle: implications for nurses. Br J Community Nurs. 2006;11(2):78–81. doi:10.12968/bjcn.2006.11.2.20445

47. Banning M, Hafeez H, Faisal S, Hassan M, Zafar A. The impact of culture and sociological and psychological issues on Muslim patients with breast cancer in Pakistan. Cancer Nurs. 2009;32(4):317–324. doi:10.1097/NCC.0b013e31819b240f

48. Morgan AK, Drury VB. Legitimising the Subjectivity of Human Reality Through Qualitative Research Method. 2003.

49. Montoro-Gurich C, Garcia-Vivar C. The family in Europe: structure, intergenerational solidarity, and new challenges to family health. J Fam Nurs. 2019;25:170–189.

50. Dziegielewski S, Holliman DC. The Changing Face of Health Care Social Work: Opportunities and Challenges for Professional Practice. Springer Publishing Company; 2019.

51. Levine C, Ramos-Callan K. The Illusion of Choice: Why Decisions About Post-Acute Care are Difficult for Patients and Family Caregivers. Quality Institute, United Hospital Fund; 2019.

52. Chika DM, Joseph OC, Gwani S. Long term health care delivery in Nigeria: issues and challenges. Int J Innovative Res Adv Stud. 2019;6(5).

Creative Commons License © 2020 The Author(s). This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.