ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
The dyadic paradox of unmet supportive care needs and depression in colorectal cancer couples: an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Guided by the Dyadic Coping Theory (DCT), this study aimed to investigate dyadic interrelationships between unmet supportive care needs (USCNs) and depression in colorectal cancer (CRC) patient-spousal caregiver dyads. Methods: Using an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design, 200 CRC patient-caregiver dyads completed quantitative surveys. The Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) analyzed dyadic data. Subsequently, 10 dyads participated in semi-structured interviews, analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Patients reported significantly higher USCNs and depression. APIM revealed significant actor effects (unfulfilled needs predicted intrapersonal depression) but non-significant partner effects. Qualitative findings explained this phenomenon: couples employed "protective buffering" to conceal unfulfilled needs, inadvertently causing emotional isolation. Conclusion: The interrelationship between USCNs and depression in CRC dyads is driven by intrapersonal internalization rather than direct interpersonal transmission. Mutual protective buffering hinders open communication rather than directly transmitting distress. Care must transition to a dyad-centered approach, implementing couple-based communication interventions to dismantle protective buffering and alleviate mutual distress.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.