D.H. Hohl

Enabling or Cultivating? The Role of Prostate Cancer Patients’ Received Partner Support and Self-Efficacy in the Maintenance of Pelvic Floor Exercise Following Tumor Surgery

BackgroundTo manage incontinence following tumor surgery, prostate cancer patients are advised to perform pelvic floor exercise (PFE). Patients’ self-efficacy and support from partners were shown to facilitate PFE. Whereas support may enhance self-efficacy (enabling function), self-efficacy may also cultivate support (cultivation function).PurposeCross-lagged inter-relationships among self-efficacy, support, and PFE were investigated.MethodPost-surgery patient-reported received support, self-efficacy, PFE, and partner-reported provided support were assessed from 175 couples at four times. Autoregressive models tested interrelations among variables, using either patients’ or partners’ reports of support.ResultsModels using patients’ data revealed positive associations between self-efficacy and changes in received support, which predicted increased PFE. Using partners’ accounts of support provided, these associations were partially cross-validated. Furthermore, partner-provided support was related with increases in patients’ self-efficacy.ConclusionPatients’ self-efficacy may cultivate partners’ support provision for patients’ PFE, whereas evidence of an enabling function of support as a predictor of self-efficacy was inconsistent.

Effects of dyadic planning on physical activity in couples: A randomized controlled trial.

Objective: Action planning can help translate physical activity intentions into action by linking situational cues with behavioral responses. Dyadic planning extends action planning and refers to target persons forming plans for their own behavior change together with partners. This study investigated whether a dyadic planning intervention could increase physical activity in target persons and their partners, whether these effects were moderated by relationship quality and mediated by action control, activity-specific received partner support, and control. Method: Couples (n = 338; target persons randomized) were randomly assigned to (a) a dyadic planning condition (DPC); (b) an individual planning condition (IPC), in which target persons planned and partners worked on a distractor task; or (c) a control condition (CC), in which couples worked on a distractor task. During 3 assessments up to 6 weeks postintervention, moderate (primary outcome) and vigorous activity were objectively measured; other variables were self-reported. Multilevel and path models were fit. Results: There were no beneficial direct effects of the intervention for DPC target persons. Over time, DPC partners’ vigorous activity increased, but decreased again. At lower relationship quality, DPC target persons’ activity decreased, whereas IPC target persons’ vigorous activity increased. Mediation hypotheses were not supported. Mutual influence models indicated positive effects of partners’ on target persons’ moderate activity in DPC and CC, whereas for IPC, negative effects of target persons’ on partners’ moderate activity emerged. Conclusions: Findings revealed the complexity of effects of dyadic planning on behavior change. Adding relationship quality to the equation clarified effects of DPC and IPC on physical activity.

Sedentary behaviours and health-related quality of life. A systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT Researchers have speculated that sedentary behaviour may reduce health-related quality of life (HRQOL), but the extent to which this is true remains unknown. Our study sought to systematically review and synthesise research on the relationship between sedentary behaviours and HRQOL and to investigate if these relationships are moderated by age, health status, and HRQOL domain. The review was registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42016036342). We searched six electronic databases. The selection process resulted in including k = 27 original studies; k = 18 were included in a meta-analysis. Data were synthesised twice, using the methods of systematic review and meta-analysis, in order to reduce biases related to a small number of included studies. Both the systematic review and meta-analytical methods indicated that lower levels of sedentary behaviours were associated with higher physical HRQOL (estimate of average effect: r = −.140; 95% CI −.191, −.088). Moderator analyses indicated that associations between the physical HRQOL domain and sedentary behaviours may be similar in strength across age- and health status groups. Causal inferences could not be drawn as most studies were cross-sectional. Concluding, sedentary behaviours were related to better physical HRQOL but not reliably to mental and social HRQOL.