The present study focused on intimacy processes in the relationships of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and their partners. Using the actor-partner interdependence model (APIM), we examined the interpersonal process model of intimacy, which proposes associations between self- and perceived partner disclosure about cancer and perceived partner responsiveness as predictors of global relationship intimacy. The study's outcomes were patients' and spouses' ratings of global relationship intimacy. Both actor (my disclosure predicts my intimacy) and partner (my partner's disclosure predicts my intimacy) effects were examined, as well as possible moderating effects for cancer-related concerns. Two hundred and nine couples in which one or both partners reported elevated cancer-specific distress completed measures of self- and perceived partner disclosure and perceived partner responsiveness regarding discussions about prostate cancer, global relational intimacy, and cancer-related concerns. Results were consistent with the interpersonal process model of intimacy in that perceived responsiveness mediated the association between self- and perceived partner disclosure about cancer and global relational intimacy for both patients and spouses. Results also indicated moderation of the links between disclosure and relational intimacy by level of patient cancer-related concerns such that the links were stronger when concerns were higher. Finally, there was also evidence of moderated mediation such that indirect effects of disclosure on relational intimacy via perceived partner responsiveness were stronger when concerns were higher. Interventions for distressed couples coping with prostate cancer would benefit from focusing on facilitating disclosure and responsiveness, particularly among distressed couples who report cancer concerns. (PsycINFO Database Record
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 May 2018.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Family Psychology
#1,714
of 1,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,802
of 341,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Family Psychology
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,860 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,886 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
