↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Husbands’ perceptions of their wives’ breast cancer coping efficacy: testing congruence models of adjustment

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Management and Research, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
Husbands’ perceptions of their wives’ breast cancer coping efficacy: testing congruence models of adjustment
Published in
Cancer Management and Research, February 2018
DOI 10.2147/cmar.s157124
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas V Merluzzi, MaryAnn Martinez Sanchez

Abstract

Recent reviews have reinforced the notion that having a supportive spouse can help with the process of coping with and adjusting to cancer. Congruence between spouses' perspectives has been proposed as one mechanism in that process, yet alternative models of congruence have not been examined closely. This study assessed alternative models of congruence in perceptions of coping and their mediating effects on adjustment to breast cancer. Seventy-two women in treatment for breast cancer and their husbands completed measures of marital adjustment, self-efficacy for coping, and adjustment to cancer. Karnofsky Performance Status was obtained from medical records. Wives completed a measure of self-efficacy for coping (wives' ratings of self-efficacy for coping [WSEC]) and husbands completed a measure of self-efficacy for coping (husbands' ratings of wives' self-efficacy for coping [HSEC]) based on their perceptions of their wives' coping efficacy. Interestingly, the correlation between WSEC and HSEC was only 0.207; thus, they are relatively independent perspectives. The following three models were tested to determine the nature of the relationship between WSEC and HSEC: discrepancy model (WSEC - HSEC), additive model (WSEC + HSEC), and multiplicative model (WSEC × HSEC). The discrepancy model was not related to wives' adjustment; however, the additive (B=0.205,P<0.001) and multiplicative (B=0.001,P<0.001) models were significantly related to wives' adjustment. Also, the additive model mediated the relationship between performance status and adjustment. Husbands' perception of their wives' coping efficacy contributed marginally to their wives' adjustment, and the combination of WSEC and HSEC mediated the relationship between functional status and wives' adjustment, thus positively impacting wives' adjustment to cancer. Future research is needed to determine the quality of the differences between HSEC and WSEC in order to develop interventions to optimize the impact of these two relatively independent perspectives on cancer outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 15%
Professor 1 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Librarian 1 8%
Other 2 15%
Unknown 3 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Neuroscience 1 8%
Engineering 1 8%
Unknown 4 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 13 February 2018.
All research outputs
#3,668,650
of 14,638,868 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Management and Research
#73
of 943 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,017
of 362,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Management and Research
#7
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,638,868 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 943 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
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 362,061 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.