Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35222142›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021

Couple Communication in Cancer: Protocol for a Multi-Method Examination.

Shelby L Langer, Joan M Romano, Francis Keefe, Donald H Baucom, Timothy Strauman, Karen L Syrjala, Niall Bolger, John Burns, Jonathan B Bricker, Michael Todd and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Couple communication in cancer: A tale of two conceptual models.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2024
    Article
  8. Couples communication and cancer: Sequences and trajectories of behavioral affective processes in relation to intimacy.Journal of family psychology : JFP : journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43) · 2024
    Observational
  9. Article
  10. Concurrent and Prospective Associations Between Communicated Emotional Arousal and Adjustment Among Couples Coping With Cancer.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Relationship Functioning and Gut Microbiota Composition among Older Adult Couples.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  13. Attachment in Couples Coping with Cancer: Associations with Observed Communication and Long-Term Health.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Shelby L LangerCenter for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Joan M RomanoDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States.
Francis KeefeDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, United States.
Donald H BaucomDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Timothy StraumanDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States.
Karen L SyrjalaClinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, United States.
Niall BolgerDepartment of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.
John BurnsDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, United States.
Jonathan B BrickerPublic Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, United States.
Michael ToddEdson College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Brian R W BaucomDepartment of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States.
Melanie S FischerInstitute of Medical Psychology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Neeta GhoshClinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, United States.
Julie GralowDivision of Medical Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States.
Veena ShankaranDivision of Medical Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States.
S Yousuf ZafarDuke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States.
Kelly WestbrookDuke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States.
Karena LeoDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, United States.
Katherine RamosDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, United States.
Danielle M WeberDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Laura S PorterDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, United States.

Funding

Couple Communication in Cancer: A Multi-Method Examination - Renewal - 1R01CA201179 · NCI · ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY-TEMPE CAMPUS · PI Shelby Langer, LAURA S PORTER · 2016 to 2026
$7.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA201179
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer and its treatment pose challenges that affect not only patients but also their significant others, including intimate partners. Accumulating evidence suggests that couples' ability to communicate effectively plays a major role in the psychological adjustment of both individuals and the quality of their relationship. Two key conceptual models have been proposed to account for how couple communication impacts psychological and relationship adjustment: the social-cognitive processing (SCP) model and the relationship intimacy (RI) model. These models posit different mechanisms and outcomes, and thus have different implications for intervention. The purpose of this project is to test and compare the utility of these models using comprehensive and methodologically rigorous methods. Aims are: (1) to examine the overall fit of the SCP and RI models in explaining patient and partner psychological and relationship adjustment as they occur on a day-to-day basis and over the course of 1 year; (2) to examine the fit of the models for different subgroups (males vs. females, and patients vs. partners); and (3) to examine the utility of various methods of assessing communication by examining the degree to which baseline indices from different measurement strategies predict self-reported adjustment at 1-year follow up. The study employs a longitudinal, multi-method approach to examining communication processes including: standard self-report questionnaires assessing process and outcome variables collected quarterly over the course of 1 year; smartphone-based ecological momentary assessments to sample participant reports in real time; and laboratory-based couple conversations from which we derive observational measures of communicative behavior and affective expression, as well as vocal indices of emotional arousal. Participants are patients with stage II-IV breast, colon, rectal, or lung cancer and their spouses/partners, recruited from two NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers. Results will be published in scientific journals, presented at scientific conferences, and conveyed to a larger audience through infographics and social media outlets. Findings will inform theory, measurement, and the design and implementation of efficacious interventions aimed at optimizing both patient and partner well-being.

Indexed as

adjustmentcancercognitive processingcouplesdistressintimacyrelationship adjustment

Identifiers

PMID35222142
PMCPMC8865086

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.