Sisters in Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Families: Communal Coping, Social Integration, and Psychological Well-being

Overview

Journal Psychooncology

Publisher Wiley

Specialties Oncology
Psychology

Date 2008 Aug 9

PMID 18688790

Citations 32

Authors

Laura M Koehly

June A Peters

Natalia Kuhn

Lindsey Hoskins

Anne Letocha

Regina Kenen

Jennifer Loud

Mark H Greene

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: We investigated the association between psychological distress and indices of social integration and communal coping among sisters from hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) families.

Sample And Methods: Sixty-five sisters from 31 HBOC families completed the Brief Symptom Inventory-18 and the Colored Eco-Genetic Relationship Map, which identified members of participants' social support networks. Hierarchical linear models were used for all analyses to account for the clustering of sisters within families.

Results: Intra-family correlation coefficients suggested that sisters shared perceptions of breast cancer risk and worry, but not ovarian cancer risk and worry. Further, sisters demonstrated shared levels of anxiety and somatization, but not depressive symptoms. Communal coping indices quantifying shared support resources were negatively related to anxiety and somatization. The number of persons with whom cancer risk information was shared exhibited a positive trend with somatization. Social integration, as measured by the size of participants' emotional support network, was negatively associated with anxiety. Lower depression scores were observed among participants with more persons playing multiple support roles and fewer persons providing tangible assistance.

Conclusion: Understanding how support relationships impact well-being among persons adjusting to HBOC risk, and the particular role of family in that process, will facilitate developing appropriate management approaches to help cancer-prone families adjust to their cancer risk.

Citing Articles

Developing and assessing a kin keeping scale with application to identifying central influencers in African American family networks.

Allen C, McBride C, Escoffery C, Guan Y, Hood C, Zaho J J Community Genet. 2023; 14(6):593-603.

PMID: 37648941 PMC: 10725405. DOI: 10.1007/s12687-023-00665-9.

Shared Responsibility and Network Collaboration in Caregiving.

Zajdel M, Keller K, Mountcastle L, Koehly L Soc Networks. 2023; 74:236-244.

PMID: 37546366 PMC: 10399706. DOI: 10.1016/j.socnet.2023.05.002.

Communal coping and its association with marital relations and psychological outcomes among healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Alimoradi Z, Soleimani M, Keramtkar M, Bahrami N, Griffiths M Front Psychol. 2022; 13:936108.

PMID: 35936326 PMC: 9354783. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.936108.

Communal Coping as a Strategy to Enhance Family Engagement in Dilated Cardiomyopathy.

Burke W, Hovick S, Jordan E, Ni H, Kinnamon D, Hershberger R Circ Genom Precis Med. 2022; 15(3):e003541.

PMID: 35536229 PMC: 9270889. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCGEN.121.003541.

A systematic review of theory-informed strategies used in interventions fostering family genetic risk communication.

Zhao J, Guan Y, McBride C Patient Educ Couns. 2022; 105(7):1953-1962.

PMID: 35304074 PMC: 9203975. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2022.03.009.

References

Folkman S, Moskowitz J . Coping: pitfalls and promise. Annu Rev Psychol. 2004; 55:745-74. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141456. View

Kenen R, Shapiro P, Friedman S, Coyne J . Peer-support in coping with medical uncertainty: discussion of oophorectomy and hormone replacement therapy on a web-based message board. Psychooncology. 2007; 16(8):763-71. DOI: 10.1002/pon.1152. View

Smith K, West J, Croyle R, Botkin J . Familial context of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: moderating effect of siblings' test results on psychological distress one to two weeks after BRCA1 mutation testing. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1999; 8(4 Pt 2):385-92. View

Rolland J, Williams J . Toward a biopsychosocial model for 21st-century genetics. Fam Process. 2005; 44(1):3-24. DOI: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2005.00039.x. View

Lewis M, McBride C, Pollak K, Puleo E, Butterfield R, Emmons K . Understanding health behavior change among couples: an interdependence and communal coping approach. Soc Sci Med. 2005; 62(6):1369-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.08.006. View

Israel B, McLeroy K . Social networks and social support: implications for health education. Introduction. Health Educ Q. 1985; 12(1):1-4. DOI: 10.1177/109019818501200101. View

Peters J, Kenen R, Giusti R, Loud J, Weissman N, Greene M . Exploratory study of the feasibility and utility of the colored eco-genetic relationship map (CEGRM) in women at high genetic risk of developing breast cancer. Am J Med Genet A. 2004; 130A(3):258-64. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.30271. View

Pescosolido B . Of pride and prejudice: the role of sociology and social networks in integrating the health sciences. J Health Soc Behav. 2006; 47(3):189-208. DOI: 10.1177/002214650604700301. View

Di Prospero L, Seminsky M, Honeyford J, Doan B, Franssen E, Meschino W . Psychosocial issues following a positive result of genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations: findings from a focus group and a needs-assessment survey. CMAJ. 2001; 164(7):1005-9. PMC: 80928. View

10.

Kowal J, Johnson S, Lee A . Chronic illness in couples: a case for emotionally focused therapy. J Marital Fam Ther. 2003; 29(3):299-310. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2003.tb01208.x. View

11.

Thoits P . Social support as coping assistance. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1986; 54(4):416-23. DOI: 10.1037//0022-006x.54.4.416. View

12.

Bakos A, Hutson S, Loud J, Peters J, Giusti R, Greene M . BRCA mutation-negative women from hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families: a qualitative study of the BRCA-negative experience. Health Expect. 2008; 11(3):220-31. PMC: 2803025. DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00494.x. View

13.

Patenaude A, Dorval M, DiGianni L, Schneider K, Chittenden A, Garber J . Sharing BRCA1/2 test results with first-degree relatives: factors predicting who women tell. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24(4):700-6. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.01.7541. View

14.

Watson M, Foster C, Eeles R, Eccles D, Ashley S, Davidson R . Psychosocial impact of breast/ovarian (BRCA1/2) cancer-predictive genetic testing in a UK multi-centre clinical cohort. Br J Cancer. 2004; 91(10):1787-94. PMC: 2410052. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602207. View

15.

Dunkel-Schetter C, Feinstein L, Taylor S, Falke R . Patterns of coping with cancer. Health Psychol. 1992; 11(2):79-87. DOI: 10.1037//0278-6133.11.2.79. View

16.

Lerman C, Daly M, Masny A, Balshem A . Attitudes about genetic testing for breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol. 1994; 12(4):843-50. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1994.12.4.843. View

17.

Shiloh S, Ilan S . To test or not to test? Moderators of the relationship between risk perceptions and interest in predictive genetic testing. J Behav Med. 2005; 28(5):467-79. DOI: 10.1007/s10865-005-9017-4. View

18.

Riley D, Eckenrode J . Social ties: subgroup differences in costs and benefits. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986; 51(4):770-8. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.51.4.770. View

19.

Kessler R, Price R, Wortman C . Social factors in psychopathology: stress, social support, and coping processes. Annu Rev Psychol. 1985; 36:531-72. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ps.36.020185.002531. View

20.

Peters J, Hoskins L, Prindiville S, Kenen R, Greene M . Evolution of the colored eco-genetic relationship map (CEGRM) for assessing social functioning in women in hereditary breast-ovarian (HBOC) families. J Genet Couns. 2006; 15(6):477-89. DOI: 10.1007/s10897-006-9042-7. View