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

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.

Effects of self-hypnosis training and EMG biofeedback relaxation training on chronic pain in persons with spinal-cord injury.

Thirty-seven adults with spinal-cord injury and chronic pain were randomly assigned to receive 10 sessions of self-hypnosis (HYP) or EMG biofeedback relaxation (BIO) training for pain management. Participants in both treatment conditions reported substantial, but similar, decreases in pain intensity from before to after the treatment sessions. However, participants in the HYP condition, but not the BIO condition, reported statistically significant decreases in daily average pain pre- to posttreatment. These pre- to posttreatment decreases in pain reported by the HYP participants were maintained at 3-month follow-up. Participants in the HYP condition, but not the BIO condition, also reported significant pre- to posttreatment increases in perceived control over pain, but this change was not maintained at the 3-month follow-up.

A comparison of self-hypnosis versus progressive muscle relaxation in patients with multiple sclerosis and chronic pain.

Twenty-two patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and chronic pain we recruited into a quasi-experimental trial comparing the effects of self-hypnosis training (HYP) with progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) on pain intensity and pain interference; 8 received HYP and the remaining 14 participants were randomly assigned to receive either HYP or PMR. HYP-condition participants reported significantly greater pre- to postsession as well as pre- to posttreatment decreases in pain and pain interference than PMR-condition participants, and gains were maintained at 3-month follow-up. Most of the participants in both conditions reported that they continued to use the skills they learned in treatment and experienced pain relief when they did so. General hypnotizability was not significantly related to treatment outcome, but treatment-outcome expectancy assessed before and after the first session was. The results support the efficacy of self-hypnosis training for the management of chronic pain in persons with MS.

Long-term outcome of hypnotic-analgesia treatment for chronic pain in persons with disabilities.

Data from 26 participants in a case series of hypnotic analgesia for chronic pain were examined to determine the long-term effects of hypnosis treatment. Statistically significant decreases in average daily pain intensity, relative to pretreatment values, were observed at posttreatment and at 3- and 9-month follow-up but not at 6- or 12-month follow-up. The percent of participants who reported clinically meaningful decreases in pain were 27%, 19%, 19%, and 23%, at the 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-up points, respectively. Moreover, at 12-months posttreatment, 81% of the sample reported that they still used the self-hypnosis skills learned in treatment. Overall, the results indicate that about 20% of the sample obtained substantial and lasting long-term reductions in average daily pain following hypnosis treatment and that many more continue to use self-hypnosis up to 12 months following treatment.

Satisfaction with, and the beneficial side effects of, hypnotic analgesia.

Case study research suggests that hypnosis treatment may provide benefits that are not necessarily the target of specific suggestions. To better understand satisfaction with and the beneficial "side effects" of hypnosis treatment, questions inquiring about treatment satisfaction and treatment benefits were administered to a group of 30 patients with chronic pain who had participated in a case series of hypnotic analgesia treatment. The results confirmed the authors' clinical experience and showed that most participants reported satisfaction with hypnosis treatment even when the targeted symptom (in this case, pain intensity) did not decrease substantially. Study participants also reported a variety of both symptom-related and nonsymptom-related benefits from hypnosis treatment, including decreased pain, increased perceived control over pain, increased sense of relaxation and well-being, and decreased perceived stress, although no single benefit was noted by a majority of participants.

Hypnotic analgesia for chronic pain in persons with disabilities: a case series.

Thirty-three adults with chronic pain and a disability were treated with hypnotic analgesia. Analyses showed significant pre- to posttreatment changes in average pain intensity that was maintained at 3-month follow-up. Significant changes were also found in pain unpleasantness and perceived control over pain but not in pain interference or depressive symptoms. Hypnotizability, concentration of treatment (e.g., daily vs. up to weekly), and initial response to treatment were not significantly associated with treatment outcome. However, treatment-outcome expectancy assessed after the first session showed a moderate association with treatment outcome. The findings support the use of hypnotic analgesia for the treatment of pain in persons with disabilities for some patients but not the use of pretreatment measures of hypnotizability or treatment-outcome expectancy for screening patients for treatment.