Table 1.
Results of the systematic literature review (k = 10).
| Study ID | Dyadic aim | Design |
Study population (type of cancer, no of diads, % male patients, average age patients, average age partners) |
Measures | Main conclusions | Risk of bias | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients | Partners | ||||||
| Acquati and Kayser (2019) (USA) | The impact of illness on the QoL and dyadic coping, the influence of relational mutuality on dyads' coping in case of younger and middle-aged couples | Cross-sectional |
Cancer: breast No dyads:86 % male patients: 0 Average age patients: 46.6 Average age partners: 49.1 |
DC: Dyadic Coping Scale QoL: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy- Breast (FACT-B) Relational mutuality: Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire (MPDQ) |
DC: Dyadic Coping Scale QoL: Quality of Life Questionnaire for Spouses (QL-SP), Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale (IIRS) Relational mutuality: Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire (MPDQ) |
Younger couples reported statistically significant worse QoL and dyadic coping scores than the middle-age couples. For younger dyads, coping styles (positive and negative) were the result of both actor and partner effects of mutuality | Low |
| Badr et al. (2010) (USA) |
Prospective evaluation of association between dyadic coping and cancer-related distress and dyadic adjustment in couples facing metastatic breast cancer | Longitu dinal |
Cancer: breast No dyads:191 % male patients:0 Average age patients: NS Average age partners: NS |
DC: Dyadic Coping Questionnaire (FDCT-N) Distress: Impact of Event Scale (IES) RQ: Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS-7) |
DC: Dyadic Coping Questionnaire (FDCT-N) Distress: Impact of Event Scale (IES) RQ: Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS-7) |
More common positive dyadic coping and less common negative dyadic coping was associated with greater dyadic adjustment for patients and partners Effects of common positive dyadic coping on cancer-related distress significantly differed for patients and their partners (partners reported lower levels of distress, patients reported higher levels of distress) Common negative dyadic coping was always significantly associated with distress and the relation was stronger for patients |
Low |
| Badr et al. (2018) (USA) |
Relations between patients' and spouses' dyadic coping and their own/each other's psychological and marital adjustment. Associations between changes in dyadic coping and changes in patients' and spouses' psychological and marital adjustment | Cross-sectional (secondary analysis of a randomized pilot trial) |
Cancer: head and neck No dyads:60 % male patients: 30 Average age patients: 58.43 Average age partners: 58.07 |
DC: Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI) Anxiety, depression: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) RQ: Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS-7) |
DC: Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI) Anxiety, depression: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) RQ: Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS-7) |
Significant actor effects were found for problem-focused stress communication, problem-focused dyadic coping, emotion-focused dyadic coping on marital adjustment. Actor and partner effects for negative dyadic coping were also significant. Also, significant actor effects of problem-focused stress communication and problem-focused dyadic coping were noticed on depression | Low |
| Crangle et al. (2019) (Canada) | Whether common dyadic coping mediates the associations between attachment and quality of life | Cross-sectional |
Cancer: ovarian No dyads:106 % male patients: 0 Average age patients: 59.1 Average age partners: 60.8 |
DC: Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI) Adult attachment: Close Relationships Scale—Revised (ECR-R) QoL: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)-Ovarian |
DC: Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI) Adult attachment: Close Relationships Scale—Revised (ECR-R) QoL: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)-general population |
Worse social and functional QOL were associated with one's own and one's partner's greater insecure attachment and this relation was mediated by common dyadic coping. Greater common dyadic coping reported by one's partner was associated with one's own lower functional QOL | Low |
| Ernst et al. (2017) (Germany) | The impact of dyadic coping on QoL | longitudinal |
Cancer: hematologic No dyads:208 % male patients: 62 Average age patients: 57.7 Average age partners: 56.9 |
DC: Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI) QoL: SF-12 Health Survey |
DC: Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI) QoL: SF-12 Health Survey |
DC (t1) had a partner effect on physical QoL (t2) and an actor and partner effect on mental QoL(t2) Different subtypes of DC had actor and partner impact on patient's or partner's QoL |
Low |
| Feldman and Broussard (2006) (USA) |
Men's dyadic coping when their partners are diagnosed with breast cancer | Cross-sectional |
Cancer: breast No dyads: 0 (71 partners) % male patients: NA Average age patients: NA Average age partners: 51 |
- |
DC: Dyadic Coping Scale (DCS) QoL: Quality of Life Spouses Scale (QOL-SP) Illness intrusiveness: Illness Intrusiveness Rating Scale (IIRS) |
Significant associations were noticed between dyadic coping styles and illness intrusiveness | Low |
| Pankrath et al. (2018) (Germany) | How the relationship satisfaction is affected by the dyadic coping | Cross-sectional |
Cancer: haematologic No dyads: 327 % male patients: 63.3 Average age patients: 57 Average age partners: 56 |
DC: Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI) RQ: Partnership Questionnaire (PFB-K) Anxiety, depression: PHQ-4 |
DC: Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI) RQ: Partnership Questionnaire (PFB-K) Anxiety, depression: PHQ-4 |
A significant positive association was noticed between positive DC and relationship satisfaction while negative DC was related to lower levels of relationship satisfaction. Age, distress and duration of relationship duration had moderating effects on the association between DC and relationship satisfaction A negative significant association was highlighted between partners' distress and the relationship satisfaction of the partners |
Low |
| Regan et al. (2014) (Australia) | Dyadic coping affects patients 'and their wives' anxiety, depression and relationship satisfaction differently (wives are more likely than patients to be influenced by their own and their partner's dyadic coping) | Cross-sectional |
Cancer: prostate No dyads: 42 % male patients: 100 Average age patients: 63.7 Average age partners: 59.6 |
DC: Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI) RQ: Revised-Dyadic Adjustment Scale (R-DAS) Anxiety, depression: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) |
DC: Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI) RQ: Revised-Dyadic Adjustment Scale (R-DAS) Anxiety, depression: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) |
A significant association was highlighted between relationship satisfaction and patients' and wives' positive and negative dyadic coping, and same strategies of their partners'. Partner's use of supportive dyadic coping was related with anxiety and depression. Husbands' and wives' perceptions of their partner's negative dyadic coping was also related with anxiety and depression | |
| Rottmann et al. (2015) (Denmark) | The relationship over time between different forms of dyadic coping and relationship quality and depressive symptoms | longitudinal |
Cancer: breast No dyads: 538 % male patients: 0 Average age patients: 58 Average age partners: 60.1 |
DC: Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI) RQ: ladder with steps numbered 0 through 10, where 0 represents the worst possible, and 10 the best possible, relationship Depression: Center for Epidemiologic Studies- Depression Scale (CES-D) |
DC: Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI) RQ: ladder with steps numbered 0 through 10, where 0 represents the worst possible, and 10 the best possible, relationship Depression: Center for Epidemiologic Studies- Depression Scale (CES-D) |
All participants experienced more depressive symptoms the more delegated coping the patients provided to the partners A negative association was noticed between the delegated coping offered by the partners to the patients and their depressive symptoms The common dyadic coping was positive associated with relationship quality and was negative associated with depressive symptoms of patients and partners The negative dyadic coping was inverse associated with patients' and partners' outcomes |
Low |
| Zimmermann et al. (2010) (Germany) | Individual factors, dyadic variables and individual variables of man as predictors of body image in women with breast cancer | Cross-sectional |
Cancer: breast No dyads: 98 % male patients: 0 Average age patients: 51.9 Average age partners: 53.1 |
DC: Dyadic Coping Questionnaire RQ: Quality of Marriage Index (QMI), Abbreviated Dyadic Adjustment Scale (ADAS) Depression: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Body image: Self Image Scale (SIS) |
DC: Dyadic Coping Questionnaire RQ: Quality of Marriage Index (QMI), Abbreviated Dyadic Adjustment Scale (ADAS) Depression: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale |
Women's self-acceptance was predicted by women's depressive symptoms and men's marital satisfaction Women's perceptions of their partner's acceptance of their appearance was predicted by relationship satisfaction and perspective on common dyadic coping |
Low |
DC, Dyadic Coping; QoL, Quality of Life; RQ, relationship quality; NA, Not Applicable, NS, Not Specified.