A survey of the prevalence of modifiable health risk behaviours among carers of people with a mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Family carers provide significant support to people with a mental illness; yet may experience poor mental and physical health themselves. Among limited research addressing the physical health of carers, studies of carers of people with dementia and young people with psychosis suggest increased risk of chronic diseases in conjunction with higher levels of potentially modifiable lifestyle risk behaviours. This exploratory study, conducted with carers of people with various mental illnesses, aimed to determine: carer prevalence of health risk behaviours (inadequate fruit and vegetable consumption, inadequate physical activity, harmful alcohol consumption, and tobacco smoking); interest in changing 'at risk' behaviours; and potential associations of socio-demographic characteristics with risk status and interest in change. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among family carers of people with a mental illness (N = 144) residing in New South Wales, Australia. Analyses explored risk behaviour prevalence and interest in change, and associations with socio-demographic variables. RESULTS: Inadequate fruit and vegetable consumption was most prevalent (74.8%), followed by engaging in inadequate amounts of physical activity (57.6%); harmful alcohol consumption (36.3%) and smoking (11.8%). The majority of carers were interested in improving 'at risk' behaviours (56.3-89.2%), with the exception of alcohol consumption (41.5%). Previously or never married participants were more likely to consume inadequate amounts of fruits and/or vegetables compared to those married or cohabiting (Odds Ratio [OR]: 4.1, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.3-12.9, p = .02). Carers in the workforce were more likely to be engaging in inadequate physical activity (OR: 2.6, 95% CI: 1.2-5.7, p = .02); and male participants were more likely to engage in harmful alcohol consumption (OR: 2.9, 95% CI: 1.1-7.9, p = .03). Working carers were approximately five times more likely to report interest in improving their alcohol consumption (OR: 5.1, 95% CI: 1.3-20.5, p = .02) compared to those not currently in the workforce. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest high engagement in health risk behaviours among carers of people with a mental illness, particularly with regards to harmful alcohol consumption. Findings suggest a need to develop and implement chronic disease prevention strategies. Further research with larger representative samples is needed to confirm findings.

A pilot, multisite, randomized controlled trial of a self-directed coping skills training intervention for couples facing prostate cancer: accrual, retention, and data collection issues.

PURPOSE: To examine the acceptability of the methods used to evaluate Coping-Together, one of the first self-directed coping skill intervention for couples facing cancer, and to collect preliminary efficacy data. METHODS: Forty-two couples, randomized to a minimal ethical care (MEC) condition or to Coping-Together, completed a survey at baseline and 2 months after, a cost diary, and a process evaluation phone interview. RESULTS: One hundred seventy patients were referred to the study. However, 57 couples did not meet all eligibility criteria, and 51 refused study participation. On average, two to three couples were randomized per month, and on average it took 26 days to enrol a couple in the study. Two couples withdrew from MEC, none from Coping-Together. Only 44 % of the cost diaries were completed, and 55 % of patients and 60 % of partners found the surveys too long, and this despite the follow-up survey being five pages shorter than the baseline one. Trends in favor of Coping-Together were noted for both patients and their partners. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified the challenges of conducting dyadic research, and a number of suggestions were put forward for future studies, including to question whether distress screening was necessary and what kind of control group might be more appropriate in future studies.

Couples coping with cancer: exploration of theoretical frameworks from dyadic studies.

OBJECTIVE: A diagnosis of cancer and subsequent treatment are distressing not only for the person directly affected, but also for their intimate partner. The aim of this review is to (a) identify the main theoretical frameworks underpinning research addressing dyadic coping among couples affected by cancer, (b) summarise the evidence supporting the concepts described in these theoretical frameworks, and (c) examine the similarities and differences between these theoretical perspectives. METHODS: A literature search was undertaken to identify descriptive studies published between 1990 and 2013 (English and French) that examined the interdependence of patients' and partners' coping, and the impact of coping on psychosocial outcomes. Data were extracted using a standardised form and reviewed by three of the authors. RESULTS: Twenty-three peer-reviewed manuscripts were identified, from which seven theoretical perspectives were derived: Relationship-Focused Coping, Transactional Model of Stress and Coping, Systemic-Transactional Model (STM) of dyadic coping, Collaborative Coping, Relationship Intimacy model, Communication models, and Coping Congruence. Although these theoretical perspectives emphasised different aspects of coping, a number of conceptual commonalities were noted. CONCLUSION: This review identified key theoretical frameworks of dyadic coping used in cancer. Evidence indicates that responses within the couple that inhibit open communication between partner and patient are likely to have an adverse impact on psychosocial outcomes. Models that incorporate the interdependence of emotional responses and coping behaviours within couples have an emerging evidence base in psycho-oncology and may have greatest validity and clinical utility in this setting.

Do couple-based interventions make a difference for couples affected by cancer? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: With the growing recognition that patients and partners react to a cancer diagnosis as an interdependent system and increasing evidence that psychosocial interventions can be beneficial to both patients and partners, there has been a recent increase in the attention given to interventions that target couples. The aim of this systematic review was to identify existing couple-based interventions for patients with cancer and their partners and explore the efficacy of these interventions (including whether there is added value to target the couple versus individuals), the content and delivery of couple-based interventions, and to identify the key elements of couple-based interventions that promote improvement in adjustment to cancer diagnosis. METHOD: A systematic review of the cancer literature was performed to identify experimental and quasi-experimental couple-based interventions published between 1990 and 2011. To be considered for this review, studies had to test the efficacy of a psychosocial intervention for couples affected by cancer. Studies were excluded if they were published in a language other than English or French, focused on pharmacological, exercise, or dietary components combined with psychosocial components, or did not assess the impact of the intervention on psychological distress (e.g., depression, anxiety) or quality of life. Data were extracted using a standardised data collection form, and were analysed independently by three reviewers. RESULTS: Of the 709 articles screened, 23 were included in this review. Couple-based interventions were most efficacious in improving couple communication, psychological distress, and relationship functioning. Interventions had a limited impact on physical distress and social adjustment. Most interventions focused on improving communication and increasing understanding of the cancer diagnosis within couples. Interventions were most often delivered by masters-level nurses or clinical psychologists. Although most were delivered in person, few were telephone-based. No difference in efficacy was noted based on mode of delivery. Factors associated with uptake and completion included symptom severity, available time and willingness to travel. CONCLUSION: Given effect sizes of couple-based interventions are similar to those reported in recent meta-analyses of patient-only and caregiver-only interventions (~d=.35-.45), it appears couple-based interventions for patients with cancer and their partners may be at least as efficacious as patient-only and caregiver-only interventions. Despite evidence that couple-based interventions enhance psycho-social adjustment for both patients and partners, these interventions have not yet been widely adopted. Although more work is needed to facilitate translation to routine practice, evidence reviewed is promising in reducing distress and improving coping and adjustment to a cancer diagnosis or to cancer symptoms.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the provision of preventive care for modifiable chronic disease risk behaviours by mental health services.

People with mental illness experience increased chronic disease burden, contributed to by a greater prevalence of modifiable chronic disease risk behaviours. Policies recommend mental health services provide preventive care for such risk behaviours. Provision of such care has not previously been synthesised. This review assessed the provision of preventive care for modifiable chronic disease risk behaviours by mental health services. Four databases were searched from 2006 to 2017. Eligible studies were observational quantitative study designs conducted in mental health services, where preventive care was provided to clients for tobacco smoking, harmful alcohol consumption, inadequate nutrition, or inadequate physical activity. Two reviewers independently screened studies, conducted data extraction and critical appraisal. Results were pooled as proportions of clients receiving or clinicians providing preventive care using random effects meta-analyses, by risk behaviour and preventive care element (ask/assess, advise, assist, arrange). Subgroup analyses were conducted by mental health service type (inpatient, outpatient, other/multiple). Narrative synthesis was used where meta-analysis was not possible. Thirty-eight studies were included with 26 amenable to meta-analyses. Analyses revealed that rates of assessment were highest for smoking (78%, 95% confidence interval [CI]:59%-96%) and lowest for nutrition (17%, 95% CI:1%-35%); with variable rates of care provision for all behaviours, care elements, and across service types, with substantial heterogeneity across analyses. Findings indicated suboptimal and variable provision of preventive care for modifiable chronic disease risk behaviours in mental health services, but should be considered with caution due to the very low quality of cumulative evidence. PROSPERO registration: CRD42016049889.

Cross-sectional relationships between dyadic coping and anxiety, depression, and relationship satisfaction for patients with prostate cancer and their spouses.

OBJECTIVE: Dyadic coping has an impact on couples' adjustment to breast cancer; however, there is limited evidence regarding whether dyadic coping influences couples' adjustment to other types of cancer. The objective of this analysis was to further our knowledge of the relationships between dyadic coping, anxiety, depression, and relationship satisfaction among couples facing prostate cancer. METHODS: Forty-two men recently diagnosed with prostate cancer recruited from urology clinics and their spouses completed measures of dyadic coping, anxiety, depression, and relationship satisfaction. The Actor-Partner Interdependence Model was used to examine the relationships among these concepts. RESULTS: Relationship satisfaction was significantly associated with patients' and wives' use of positive and negative dyadic coping, and their partners' use of these strategies. Although patients' and wives' use of supportive dyadic coping was not associated with their anxiety and depression, their partner's use of this strategy was associated with anxiety and depression. Only husbands' and wives' perceptions of their partner's negative dyadic coping was associated with anxiety and depression. CONCLUSIONS/PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Couples respond to a prostate cancer diagnosis as an interactional system. Future research should focus on tailoring couple-based interventions such that patients and spouses are equipped to provide the specific support their partners need.