Advanced cancer affects the emotional and physical well-being of both patients and family caregivers in profound ways and is experienced both dyadically and individually. Dyadic interventions address the concerns of both members of the dyad. A critical gap exists in advanced cancer research, which is a failure of goals research and dyadic research to fully account for the reciprocal and synergistic effects of patients’ and caregivers’ individual perspectives, and those they share.
Aim:
We describe the feasibility and acceptability of the Me in We dyadic intervention, which is aimed at facilitating communication and goals-sharing among caregiver and patient dyads while integrating family context and individual/shared perspectives.
Design:
Pilot study of a participant-generated goals communication intervention, guided by multiple goals theory, with 13 patient-caregiver dyads over two sessions.
Setting/participants:
Patients with advanced cancer and their self-identified family caregivers were recruited from an academic cancer center. Dyads did not have to live together, but both had to consent to participate and all participants had to speak and read English and be at least 18 years or age.
Results:
Of those approached, 54.8% dyads agreed to participate and completed both sessions. Participants generated and openly discussed their personal and shared goals and experienced positive emotions during the sessions.
Conclusions:
This intervention showed feasibility and acceptability using participant-generated goals as personalized points of communication for advanced cancer dyads. This model shows promise as a communication intervention for dyads in discussing and working towards individual and shared goals when facing life-limiting or end-of-life cancer.
Institute of Medicine (IOM). Dying in America: improving quality and honoring individual preferences near the end of live. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2015.
SegrinCBadgerTA.Psychological and physical distress are interdependent in breast cancer survivors and their partners. Psychol Health Med2014; 19: 716–723.
4.
BadrHGuptaVSikoraA, et al. Psychological distress in patients and caregivers over the course of radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Oral Oncol2014; 50: 1005–1011.
5.
ClarkMMAthertonPJLapidMI, et al. Caregivers of patients with cancer fatigue: a high level of symptom burden. Am J Hosp Palliat Med2014; 31: 121–125.
6.
ClarkPGBrethwaiteDSGnesdiloffS.Providing support at time of death from cancer: results of a 5-year post-bereavement group study. J Soc Work End-of-Life Palliat Care2011; 7: 195–215.
7.
WadhwaDBurmanDSwamiN, et al. Quality of life and mental health in caregivers of outpatients with advanced cancer. Psychooncology2013; 22: 403–410.
8.
SiminoffLAZyzanskiSJRoseJH, et al. The cancer communication assessment tool for patients and families (CCAT-PF): a new measure. Psychooncology2008; 17: 1216–1224.
9.
SongLNorthouseLLZhangL, et al. Study of dyadic communication in couples managing prostate cancer: a longitudinal perspective. Psychooncology2012; 21: 72–81.
10.
PorterLSKeefeFJHurwitzH, et al. Disclosure between patients with gastrointestinal cancer and their spouses. Psychooncology2005; 14: 1030–1042.
11.
ManneSLOstroffJSNortonTR, et al. Cancer-related relationship communication in couples coping with early stage breast cancer. Psychooncology2006; 15: 234–247.
12.
NorthouseLLMoodDWSchafenackerA, et al. Randomized clinical trial of a family intervention for prostate cancer patients and their spouses. Cancer2007; 110: 2809–2818.
13.
ManneSBadrHZaiderT, et al. Cancer-related communication, relationship intimacy, and psychological distress among couples coping with localized prostate cancer. J Cancer Surviv2010; 4: 74–85.
14.
BadrHPasipanodyaECLaurenceauJP.An electronic diary study of the effects of patient avoidance and partner social constraints on patient momentary affect in metastatic breast cancer. Ann Behav Med2013; 45: 192–202.
15.
LobchukMMDegnerLF.Patients with cancer and next-of-kin response comparability on physical and psychological symptom well-being: trends and measurement issues. Cancer Nurs2002; 25: 358–376.
16.
SiminoffLAWilson-GendersonMBakerSJr.Depressive symptoms in lung cancer patients and their family caregivers and the influence of family environment. Psychooncology2010; 19: 1285–1293.
17.
SchulerTAZaiderTILiY, et al. Typology of perceived family functioning in an American sample of patients with advanced cancer. J Pain Symptom Manag2014; 48: 281–288.
18.
MolsFAaronsonNKVingerhoetsAJJM, et al. Quality of life among long-term non-Hodgkin lymphoma survivors: a population-based study. Cancer2007; 109: 1659–1667.
19.
LimJ-WZebrackB.Social networks and quality of life for long-term survivors of leukemia and lymphoma. Support Care Cancer2006; 14: 185–192.
20.
NorthouseLL.Helping patients and their family caregivers cope with cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum2012; 39: 500–506.
21.
ParksSMWinterLSantanaAJ, et al. Family factors in end-of-life decision-making: family conflict and proxy relationship. J Palliat Med2011; 14: 179–184.
22.
TangSTLiuTLaiM, et al. Concordance of preferences for end-of-life care between terminally ill cancer patients and their family caregivers in Taiwan. J Pain Symptom Manag2005; 30: 510–518.
23.
FriedTRBradleyEHTowleVR.Valuing the outcomes of treatment: do patients and their caregivers agree?Arch Intern Med2003; 163: 2073–2078.
24.
ShinDWChoJKimSY, et al. Discordance among patient preferences, caregiver preferences, and caregiver predictions of patient preferences regarding disclosure of terminal status and end-of-life choices. Psychooncology2015; 24: 212–219.
25.
BurnsCMBroomDHSmithWT, et al. Fluctuating awareness of treatment goals among patients and their caregivers: a longitudinal study of a dynamic process. Support Care Cancer2007; 15: 187–196.
26.
NorthouseLLRossetTPhillipsL, et al. Research with families facing cancer: the challenges of accrual and retention. Res Nurs Health2006; 29: 199–211.
27.
Institute of Medicine (IOM). In: LevitLBaloghENassSGanzPA (eds) Delivering high-quality cancer care: charting a new course for a system in crisis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2013.
28.
ScottAMCaughlinJP.Enacted goal attention in family conversations about end-of-life health decisions. Commun Monogr2014; 81: 261–284.
29.
BrownSLNesseRMVinokurAD, et al. Providing social support may be more beneficial than receiving it: results from a prospective study of mortality. Psychol Sci2003; 14: 320–327.
30.
WilsonSRFengH.Interaction goals and message production: conceptual and methodological developments. In: Roskos-EwoldsenDRMonahanJL (eds) Communication and social cognition: theories and methods. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007, pp.71–95.
31.
CaughlinJP.Invited review article: a multiple goals theory of personal relationships: conceptual integration and program overview. J Soc Pers Relat2010; 27: 824–848.
32.
GottmanJMNotariusCI.Decade review: observing marital interaction. J Marriage Fam2000; 62: 927–947.
33.
HeymanRE.Observation of couple conflicts: clinical assessment applications, stubborn truths, and shaky foundations. Psychol Assess2001; 13: 5.
34.
BernackiREBlockSD.Communication about serious illness care goals: a review and synthesis of best practices. JAMA Intern Med2014; 174: 1994–2003.
35.
KetcherDEllingtonLBaucomBRW, et al. “In eight minutes we talked more about our goals, relationship, than we have in years”: a pilot of patient–caregiver discussions in a neuro-oncology clinic. J Fam Nurs2020; 26: 126–137.
36.
EllingtonLClaytonMFReblinM, et al. Communication among cancer patients, caregivers, and hospice nurses: content, process and change over time. Patient Educ Couns2018; 101: 414–421.
37.
FeggMJKramerML’hosteS, et al. The schedule for meaning in life evaluation (SMiLE): validation of a new instrument for meaning-in-life research. J Pain Symptom Manag2008; 35: 356–364.
38.
BeckerGMerkCSMeffertC, et al. Measuring individual quality of life in patients receiving radiation therapy: the SEIQoL-questionnaire. Qual Life Res2014; 23: 2025–2030.
39.
AburubASGagnonBRodríguezAM, et al. Using a personalized measure (patient generated index (PGI)) to identify what matters to people with cancer. Support Care Cancer2016; 24: 437–445.
40.
TraaMJDe VriesJBodenmannG, et al. Dyadic coping and relationship functioning in couples coping with cancer: a systematic review. Br J Health Psychol2015; 20: 85–114.
41.
LiQLokeAY.A literature review on the mutual impact of the spousal caregiver–cancer patients dyads: ‘communication’, ‘reciprocal influence’, and ‘caregiver–patient congruence’. Eur J Oncol Nurs2014; 18: 58–65.
42.
BadrHBakhshaieJChhabriaK.Dyadic interventions for cancer survivors and caregivers: state of the science and new directions. Semin Oncol Nurs2019; 35: 337–341.
43.
LumHDSudoreRL.Advance care planning and goals of care communication in older adults with cardiovascular disease and multi-morbidity. Clin Geriatr Med2016; 32: 247–260.
