Differences between complete and incomplete couples in physical health research: Implications for methods and generalizability.

RATIONALE: Couples-based interventions to facilitate health behavior change and improve disease outcomes are gaining attention from researchers. Dyadic research, however, poses unique methodological challenges that have raised questions about research samples and the generalizability of findings. OBJECTIVE: The current study examined whether couples in which both partners participated (i.e., complete couples) in a couples' health research study systematically differed from those in which only one partner participated (i.e., incomplete couples). METHODS: Between January 2014 and November 2015, an online survey was advertised on Facebook to people who were both engaged to be married and living in the Denver, Colorado metropolitan area. When the first member of a couple completed the survey (initially recruited participant), they provided their partner's email address, which prompted the research staff to invite the second partner to complete the same online survey. Constructs assessed included demographics, health behaviors, general health status, and relationship quality. Participants answered questions about themself and their partner. Approximately one-third of the partners of initially recruited participants also participated. Data from initial participants in complete couples (N = 265) were compared to data from initial participants in incomplete couples (N = 509). RESULTS: Chi-square tests and independent samples t-tests indicated participants in incomplete couples had significantly lower relationship quality, worse health behaviors, and poorer health status compared to those in complete couples. Reports on partner health behaviors also differed in the same direction between the two groups. Participants in complete couples were more likely to be White, less likely to have children, and had more education than in incomplete couples. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that studies requiring both members of a couple may recruit samples that are less diverse with fewer health concerns than research that only requires individual participation if their partner refused participation. Implications and recommendations for future couples-based health research are discussed.

Existential distress and meaning making among female breast cancer patients with cancer-related fertility concerns.

OBJECTIVES: The current study explored the impact of cancer-related fertility concerns on existential distress and meaning making among female breast cancer (BC) patients of childbearing age and assessed support needs. METHODS: The current study was embedded within a larger study. A seven-question online survey was administered to female BC participants to explore meaning and identity in their lives. Applied thematic analysis was used to analyze participants' written responses. RESULTS: A total of 98 participants completed the survey, the majority of whom identified as white, married or partnered, and employed full time and with stage I or II BC. More than 50% of the participants expressed a need for support from a counselor or support group during their cancer experience. Three subthemes emerged related to existential distress and cancer-related fertility concerns: (1) loss of womanhood: treatment-related physical changes impact on gender identity; (2) existential distress due to treatment decisions impacting fertility; and (3) shattered vision: cancer-related infertility impact on meaning and purpose. Four subthemes emerged related to meaning making with fertility-related existential concerns: (1) coping with loss of meaning, (2) re-evaluating priorities in life; (3) resilience to loss, and (4) persistent loss of meaning. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Study results offer valuable insights into the experiences of female BC survivors' cancer-related fertility on existential distress and meaning making. Development of psychological interventions targeted to support this population to cope with existential distress due to cancer-related fertility concerns and meaning making are needed to improve the quality of life of this population.

Guided imagery for treatment (GIFT): protocol of a pilot trial of guided imagery versus treatment as usual to address radiotherapy-related distress in head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cancers of the head and neck region are associated with high symptom burden and elevated levels of psychological distress. Radiotherapy (RT) is a common treatment for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) that is associated with psychological distress related to the immobilizing nature of the treatment, frequency of treatment delivery, and side effects. Guided imagery is a relaxation technique that is beneficial in reducing psychological distress in patients with other cancer diagnoses but has not been studied in this patient population. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a brief guided imagery intervention (guided imagery for treatment, GIFT) to reduce RT-related anxiety and depression in patients with HNC relative to treatment as usual (TAU). METHODS: Patients with HNC planning to receive RT will be recruited to participate in a randomized controlled trial evaluating a brief, two-session guided imagery intervention (GIFT) relative to TAU alone. Primary aims include acceptability and feasibility evaluated through quantitative and qualitative methods. Measures of anxiety and depression, symptom burden, health-related quality of life, and anxiolytic medication use will be collected at baseline, during treatment, and at 1-month follow-up. DISCUSSION: There are no published interventions of guided imagery for anxiety and depression in patients with HNC despite its efficacy in other populations of patients with cancer. This proposed project evaluates the feasibility and acceptability of an intervention that has the potential to reduce psychological distress in a vulnerable population. Additionally, we will preliminarily examine the impact of behavioral intervention on psychological distress and the use of anxiolytic medication, a novel area of study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03662698 ; registered on 9/6/2018.

The development and psychometric examination of the partner investment in health scale.

OBJECTIVE: Relationship partners' impacts on health are not fully captured by existing measures. A measure that applies to a prevention context and accounts for both partners' perspectives is needed. This work developed and assessed the psychometric properties of the novel Partner Investment in Health scale (PI-H). DESIGN: A cross-sectional design assessed participants (N = 261) using an online survey. Exploratory factor analyses were used to determine the PI-H factor structure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Items assessed the person's investment in their partner's health and their perception of their partner's investment in their health. RESULTS: A 2 factor structure underlying 24 items on the PI-H scale was supported. Factors represented 1) the respondent's investment and 2) the respondent's perception of their partner's investment. The PI-H significantly correlated with related measures (e.g. relationship satisfaction, dyadic and communal coping; p < .05). CONCLUSION: A full PI-H scale, two subscales, and a short version of the scale (8 items) are presented. Correlations demonstrated convergent validity and suggested the PI-H is distinct from existing constructs. Theoretical implications and applications are discussed.

A Couples-Based Approach for Increasing Physical Activity Among Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Pilot Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to examine feasibility outcomes and obtain initial efficacy data on an intervention testing collaborative implementation intentions (IIs) for physical activity (PA) among participants with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: The study used a pilot randomized design and enrolled people with diabetes (PWD) and their partners (N = 40 couples, 80 individuals). PWD reported psychosocial measures, including self-efficacy for PA, diabetes partner investment in diabetes self-management, and PA-related social support. Accelerometers (objective) and the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (self-report) were used to assess PA. RESULTS: Participants in both experimental conditions reported being satisfied with the intervention and highly committed to their PA plans. Participants were able to follow instructions and completed the intervention in less than 30 minutes. Participants in the collaborative IIs condition reported a greater increase in PA-related social support (partial 2 = .185, P < .05) and self-reported recreational PA (partial 2 = .210, P < .05) at 6 weeks compared to the other 2 conditions. In this pilot study, there were no significant group differences on other psychosocial outcomes or for objective PA; however, time in light PA trended higher for the collaborative IIs condition compared to the other 2 conditions (partial 2 = .237, P = .056). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides initial support for collaborative IIs for PA with PWD and their partners. This brief intervention was feasible and highly acceptable, and it may improve relationship dynamics around PA as well as ultimately increase PA.