Table 1.

Main DC findings for the various physical illnesses.

Cluster	Physical illness	Main findings	No. of publications
Cluster I	COPD	- Compared to a control group, (1) COPD patients received more DC and were less able to provide support to their partners, (2) couples with COPD perceived higher levels of negative DC and reported less positive DC. - Partners of COPD patients strongly supported the patients, but got back little support themselves. Partners' quality of life seemed to benefit when patients were able to communicate about their stress and provided delegated DC on their part.	3
	Cystic fibrosis	- Due to the early onset and life-limiting course of CF, couples were on average younger than samples with other chronic diseases. - Two main ways of dealing with CF as a couple were observed: cooperation vs. tension. Findings pointed to three dyadic qualities that supported coping as a couple, and distinguished between the two patterns of DC: mutual empathy, division of roles, and open, direct, and congruent communication about the illness.	1
Cluster II	Arthritis and lupus erythematosus	- Various types of DC patterns in affected couples: “shared illness management” and “ill partner in charge,” and “conflict over management” - Being in a good marriage and synchrony between the amount of support the female rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patient desired from her partner and received were significantly associated with reduced RA pain ratings. - Intervention: cognitive-behavioral self-management group treatment for patients with RA led to better communication at 6-month follow-up. - Intervention: training in pain coping skills and training in couples skills designed to supplement and reinforce the patient's pain coping skills led to improvements in coping and self-efficacy at 12-month follow-up. - Measurement instrument: A measure covering interpersonal efficacy in couples coping with rheumatoid arthritis was developed and tested.	9
	Diabetes mellitus	Type I - Mostly younger patients who lived with their chronic condition before entering into the couple relationship. Patients with type I diabetes considered their illness to be their individual problem and were often not aware that their illness was a source of distress to their partners, which made it hard to ask for support. - Spouses' we-talk might be more important than patient we-talk because it signifies that spouses are involved in helping with diabetes management, namely by providing emotional support and refraining from criticizing the patient. - For young adults with type 1 diabetes, partner overinvolvement in diabetes management had a mixed impact on outcomes, whereas partner underinvolvement was uniformly related to poor outcomes. - When patients and partners were consistent in their shared appraisals, DC was highest. High DC was related to better psychological and physical health. Type II - DC, in particular partner communal coping on a daily basis, was associated with higher levels of diabetes problem-solving, diabetes efficacy, and relationship satisfaction for both patients and spouses. - There may be a limit to how much communal coping is adaptive. Patients who reported greater overlap with their partners in coping with diabetes or patients with avoidant attachment style also saw those partners as overprotective and controlling. - Diabetes efficacy was associated with better dietary and exercise adherence on the part of the patient. - Differential effects were also observed for gender and ethnicity. - In older couples, traditional division of labor may be prevalent and have an impact on DC. Depending on who is suffering from diabetes in the relationship, dietary management is a form of control (sensed by male patients) or lack of support (sensed by female patients). - A particular stressor was dealing with hypoglycemia where a spouse might need to act quickly while the patient might be pushed into resistance to any support. Finding the right balance of respect for the patient's need of independence and autonomy was important.	23
	Parkinson's disease	- Beneficial aspects of DC were emotional support, listening, providing informational support, giving advice, or encouraging shifts in perspective. - Partners' differing approaches to coping can make support difficult or support may threaten independent and capable identity or place unwanted emphasis on the disease. - There was a fear of burdening one's partner and draining the caregiver and having to deal with dependency.	2
	Renal disease	- Complex sex and role differences occurred in terms of DC in renal transplant patient caregiver dyads. - Dyads successfully coping with home dialyses; unhurried training that valued care partners as well as patients, used a mix of learning strategies, and provided a home visit for the first home treatment was beneficial.	2
	Stroke	- Lower levels of active engagement and higher levels of protective buffering were associated with greater depression in spouses but not in stroke survivors. - Couples sought a new equilibrium together after the stroke in an attempt to resolve the impact of the stroke and adapt to changes in formerly shared leisure activities as well as division of homemaking and breadwinning labor.	4
Cluster III	Endometriosis	- The women seemed to be the ones obtaining the information and sharing it with their partners. Communication about the illness, the relationship, and the dyspareunia seemed particularly important.	1
	HIV	Heterosexual couples - To protect the healthy partner in a serodiscordant heterosexual relationship, joint effort was needed regarding the mutual acceptance of their serodiscordant status. Communication was important about the situation and engaging in cooperative action to solve problems, including use of condoms and gel. Homosexual couples - In homosexual couples, both partners' reports of higher positive communication scores were associated with increased relationship satisfaction. This was mediated by higher levels of inclusion of the partner in the self. - Couples with a “relational” orientation described health as interconnected and couples prioritized being aware of one another's health status and care needs. Couples with a “personal” orientation consisted of couples in which one or both partners described their health and health care as independent and autonomous as long as health status was stable.	4