Distress in cancer patients and their caregivers and association with the caregivers' perception of dyadic communication.

BACKGROUND: Discrepancies within cancer-affected couples can disrupt security within the dyadic relationship during cancer treatment. This study investigated the patients' and caregivers' distress and associations between the caregivers' perception of the patients' degree of open communication and their distress. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: In a cross-sectional survey, 189 pairs of cancer patients (31% gastrointestinal, 34% lung, 35% urological cancers) and their partners were assessed for distress (QSC-R10), depression and anxiety (PHQ-2/GAD-2). The caregivers also reported their perception of the patients' degree of disclosure regarding cancer-relevant topics (CCAT-F Disclosure subscale), caregiver strain (CSI), and unmet needs (SCNS-P&C). Prevalences of clinically significant distress were calculated. Associations were calculated between the caregivers' and the patients' ratings and between the caregivers' distress and their perception of the patients' degree of disclosure. RESULTS: 33% of the caregivers and 25% of the patients exhibited significant anxiety, with a tendency towards a higher frequency in the caregivers (p = 0.10). The prevalence of depression was lower but equally high in caregivers and patients. The caregivers' perceived non-disclosure by the patients was primarily associated with their anxiety (r = 0.31), disease-specific distress (r = 0.32), and psychological/emotional needs (r = 0.35). CONCLUSION: The identification of caregivers reporting problems in communicating with patients should be pursued in clinical practice as this might indicate that caregivers are particularly burdened.

Assessing patient-caregiver communication in cancer--a psychometric validation of the Cancer Communication Assessment Tool (CCAT-PF) in a German sample.

PURPOSE: The recently introduced Cancer Communication Assessment Tool (CCAT-PF) measures congruence in patient-caregiver communication and was initially validated in lung cancer patients. Contributing to a greater proportion of the variance in the conflict scores, primary caregivers were hypothesized to experience greater stress. For a detailed understanding of conflicting communication patterns of cancer-affected families, our study aimed for psychometric validation of the CCAT-PF in a sample covering heterogeneous tumor entities. METHODS: Subsequent to a cross-sectional survey of 189 pairs of cancer patients (31 % gastrointestinal, 34 % lung, and 35 % urological) and their caregivers' exploratory factor analysis with principal component condensation and varimax rotation was conducted (response rate, 74.2 %). Reliability and construct validity were assessed calculating Cronbach's α and Pearson correlation coefficients for CCAT-P and CCAT-F scales and related constructs, respectively. RESULTS: Cancer-related communication according to the CCAT-PF can be subdivided into four factors including the scales Disclosure, Limitation of treatment, Family involvement in treatment decisions, and Continuing treatment. Reliability ranged from α = .51-.68. The Disclosure scale, describing poor cancer-related communication of the patient, was correlated with patient's distress (QSC-R10: r = .30, p < .0001), unmet needs in several areas (SCNS-SF-34: r = .25-.32, p < .001), and negatively with social/family well-being (FACT: r = -0.31, p < .0001). Higher scores on the scale were significantly associated with considerable decrements in emotional well-being especially for caregivers perceiving patients' disclosure as problematic. CONCLUSIONS: The Disclosure scale originating from the CCAT-PF emerged as a short, valid, and reliable stand-alone instrument for identifying conflicting communication in patient-caregiver-dyads at risk.

Psychosocial support in patients with multiple myeloma at time of diagnosis: who wants what?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine interest in psychosocial interventions among patients with multiple myeloma at time of diagnosis as well as associated factors. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were recruited from our outpatient myeloma unit at the Heidelberg University Hospital. Patients completed questionnaires that included a checklist on desired psychosocial interventions and the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item (PHQ-9) depression and Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale (GAD-7) anxiety scales. Medical data were extracted from the patients' electronic records. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 114 out of the 130 myeloma patients. Half of the patients (51%) desired psychosocial interventions. The most common preferences were relaxation techniques (21%), psychological counseling (20%), and peer support groups (18%). Approximately 24% of the patients reported symptoms of depression, and 8% reported symptoms of anxiety. Patients with symptoms of depression had twice as many preferences for psychosocial interventions as nondepressed patients. They more frequently desired individual psychotherapy (p = 0.035) and peer support groups (p = 0.015). In general, lower age was associated with greater interest in psychosocial interventions. Medical status was not strongly associated with interest in psychosocial interventions. CONCLUSIONS: A high percentage (51%) of patients with multiple myeloma has psychosocial intervention desires at the time of diagnosis. The greatest interest was found in depressed and younger patients. However, depressed patients do not prefer a single intervention form but rather show a broad variability of wishes, so 'one size does not fit all'. Therefore, to reach all patients in need, a choice of psychosocial interventions should be offered.