Advertisement

Patient and partner illness appraisals and health among adults with type 1 diabetes

  • Vicki S. Helgeson
  • Cynthia A. Berg
  • Caitlin S. Kelly
  • Meredith Van Vleet
  • Melissa Zajdel
  • Enjin Lee Tracy
  • Michelle L. Litchman
Article

Abstract

In a study of 199 couples in which one person had type 1 diabetes, we examined how patient appraisal of the diabetes as shared versus individual was associated with collaborative, supportive and unsupportive behavior and whether patient shared illness appraisal was most beneficial for health when it occurred in the context of supportive behavior. We assessed illness appraisal among patients with type 1 diabetes and their partners and had patients complete relationship and health measures. Results showed partners were more likely than patients to hold shared illness appraisals. Patients’ shared appraisals were associated with more collaborative and instrumental support, more emotional support, less protective buffering, and more overprotective behavior. When patients and partners were consistent in their shared appraisals, support was highest. Regression analysis showed collaborative and instrumental support, as well as emotional support, was related to better psychological and physical health when patients held shared compared to individual illness appraisals.

Keywords

Communal coping Dyadic coping Type 1 diabetes Social support Couples 

Notes

Funding

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health DP3 DK103999.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Vicki S. Helgeson, Cynthia A. Berg, Caitlin S. Kelly, Meredith Van Vleet, Melissa Zajdel, Enjin Lee Tracy and Michelle L. Litchman declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights and Informed consent

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

References

  1. Afifi, T. D., Hutchinson, S., & Krouse, S. (2006). Toward a theoretical model of communal coping in postdivorce families and other naturally occurring groups. Communication Theory, 16, 378–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Association, A. D. (2017). 6 Glycemic targets: Standards of medical care in diabetes 2018. Diabetes Care, 41, S55–S64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berg, C. A., Butner, J. E., Butler, J. M., King, P. S., Hughes, A. E., & Wiebe, D. J. (2013). Parental persuasive strategies in the face of daily problems in adolescent type 1 diabetes management. Health Psychology, 32, 719–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg, C. A., Schindler, I., & Maharajh, S. (2008a). Adolescents’ and mothers’ perceptions of the cognitive and relational functions of collaboration and adjustment in dealing with type 1 diabetes. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 865–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg, C. A., Schindler, I., Smith, T. W., Skinner, M., & Beveridge, R. M. (2011). Perceptions of the cognitive compensation and interpersonal enjoyment functions of collaboration among middle-aged and older married couples. Psychology and Aging, 26, 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berg, C. A., Skinner, M., Ko, K., Butler, J. M., Palmer, D. L., Butner, J., et al. (2009). The fit between stress appraisal and dyadic coping in understanding perceived coping effectiveness for adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 521–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berg, C. A., & Upchurch, R. (2007). A developmental-contextual model of couples coping with chronic illness across the adult life span. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 920–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berg, C. A., Wiebe, D. J., Butner, J., Bloor, L., Bradstreet, C., Upchurch, R., et al. (2008b). Collaborative coping and daily mood in couples dealing with prostate cancer. Psychology and Aging, 23, 505–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bodenmann, G. (1997). Dyadic coping: A systematic-transactional view of stress and coping among couples: Theory and empirical findings. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47, 137–140.Google Scholar
  10. Bodenmann, G., & Randall, A. K. (2012). Common factors in the enhancement of dyadic coping. Behavior Therapy, 43, 88–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bolger, N., & Amarel, D. (2007). Effects of social support visibility on adjustment to stress: Experimental evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 458–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diamantopoulos, A., Sarstedt, M., Fuchs, C., Wilczynski, P., & Kaiser, S. (2012). Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: A predictive validity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40, 434–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Falconier, M. K., Jackson, J. B., Hilpert, P., & Bodenmann, G. (2015). Dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 42, 28–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 572–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hagedoorn, M., Keers, J. C., Links, T. P., Bouma, J., Ter Maaten, J. C., & Sanderman, R. (2006). Improving self-management in insulin-treated adults participating in diabetes education. The role of the overprotection by the partner. Diabetic Medicine, 23, 271–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hagedoorn, M., Kuijer, R. G., Buunk, B. P., DeJong, G. M., Wobbes, T., & Sanderman, R. (2000). Marital satisfaction in patients with cancer: Does support from intimate partners benefit those who need it the most? Health Psychology, 19, 274–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Helgeson, V. S., Jakubiak, B., Seltman, H., Hausmann, L. R. M., & Korytkowski, M. T. (2016). Implicit and explicit communal coping in couples with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34, 1099–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Helgeson, V. S., Jakubiak, B., Van Vleet, M., & Zajdel, M. (2018). Communal coping and adjustment to chronic illness: Theory update and evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22, 170–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Helgeson, V. S., Novak, S. A., Lepore, S. J., & Eton, D. T. (2004). Spouse social control efforts: Relations to health behavior and well-being among men with prostate cancer. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson, M. D., Anderson, J. R., Walker, A., Wilcox, A., Lewis, V. L., & Robbins, D. C. (2013). Common dyadic coping is indirectly related to dietary and exercise adherence via patient and partner diabetes efficacy. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 722–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kayser, K., Watson, L. E., & Andrade, J. T. (2007). Cancer as a “we-disease”: Examining the process of coping from a relational perspective. Families, Systems, and Health, 25, 404–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee, E., & Roberts, L. J. (2018). Between individual and family coping: A decade of theory and research on couples coping with health-related stress. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 10, 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lewin, A. B., LaGreca, A. M., Geffken, G. R., Williams, L. B., Duke, D. C., Storch, E. A., et al. (2009). Validity and reliability of an adolescent and parent rating scale of type 1 diabetes adherence behaviors: The self-care inventory (SCI). Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34, 999–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lewis, M. A., & Rook, K. S. (1999). Social control in personal relationships: Impact on health behaviors and psychological distress. Health Psychology, 18, 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lyons, R. F., Mickelson, K. D., Sullivan, M. J. L., & Coyne, J. C. (1998). Coping as a communal process. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 579–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martire, L. M., Schulz, R., Helgeson, V. S., Small, B. J., & Saghafi, E. M. (2010). Review and meta-analysis of couple-oriented interventions for chronic illness. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 40, 325–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McClure, M. J., Xu, J. H., Craw, J. P., Lane, S. P., Bolger, N., & Shrout, P. E. (2014). Understanding the costs of support transactions in daily life. Journal of Personality, 82, 563–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Polonsky, W. H., Fisher, L., Earles, J., Dudl, R. J., Lees, J., Mullan, J., et al. (2005). Assessing psychosocial distress in diabetes: Development of the diabetes distress scale. Diabetes Care, 28, 626–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rafaeli, E., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2009). Skilled support within intimate relationships. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 1, 20–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rentscher, K. E., Rohrbaugh, M. J., Shoham, V., & Mehl, M. R. (2013). Asymmetric partner pronoun use and demand-withdraw interaction in couples coping with health problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 691–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rentscher, K. E., Soriano, E. C., Rohrbaugh, M. J., Shoham, V., & Mehl, M. R. (2017). Partner pronoun use, communal coping, and abstinence during couple-focused intervention for problematic alcohol use. Family Process, 56, 348–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Revenson, T. A. (1994). Social support and marital coping with chronic illness. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 16, 122–130.Google Scholar
  35. Rohrbaugh, M. J., Shoham, V., Skoyen, J. A., Jensen, M., & Mehl, M. R. (2012). We-talk, communal coping, and cessation success in a couple-focused intervention for health-compromised smokers. Family Process, 51, 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rottman, N., Hansen, D. G., Larsen, P. V., Nicolaisen, A., Flyger, H., Johansen, C., et al. (2015). Dyadic coping within couples dealing with breast cancer: A longitudinal, population-based study. Health Psychology, 34, 486–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Song, Y., Nam, S., Park, S., Shin, I.-S., & Ku, B. J. (2017). The impact of social support on self-care of patients with diabetes: What is the effect of diabetes type? Systematic review and meta-analysis. The Diabetes Educator, 43, 396–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stephens, M. A. P., Franks, M. M., Rook, K. S., Iida, M., Hemphill, R. C., & Salem, J. K. (2013). Spouses’ attempts to regulate day-to-day dietary adherence among patients with type 2 diabetes. Health Psychology, 32, 1029–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thoits, P. A. (2011). Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52, 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tracy, E. L., Berg, C. A., Baucom, K. J. W., Turner, S. L., Kelly C. S., Van Vleet, M., et al. (in press). Daily sleep quality and duration and daily stressors in couples coping with Type 1 diabetes. Health Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000690.
  41. Uchino, B. N. (2009). Understanding the links between social support and physical health. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 236–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vangelisti, A. L. (2009). Challenges in conceptualizing social support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ware, J., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. (1996). A 12-item short-form health survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care, 34, 220–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ware, J. E., Snow, K. K., Kosinski, M., & Gandek, B. (1993). SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and interpretation guide. Boston: Nimrod.Google Scholar
  45. Zajdel, M., Helgeson, V. S., Seltman, H. J., Korytkowski, M. T., & Hausmann, L. R. M. (2016) Measuring communal coping in type 2 diabetes using a multi-method approach. In Poster presented at the 36th Annual Meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.University of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations