Communicating resilience: predictors and outcomes of dyadic communication resilience processes among both cancer patients and cancer partners

ABSTRACT

The communication theory of resilience describes five communication processes that serve to promote resilience. This research examines predictors and outcomes of the five resilience processes. This study examines pathways between communication efficacy and relational quality to dyadic communicative resilience processes and from these processes to outcomes of health management and evaluations of dyadic coping. Participants (N = 584) include cancer patients (n = 312) and partners of cancer patients (n = 272). Structural equation analyses revealed that for both patients and partners, increased communication efficacy positively predicts the majority of the communication resilience processes and increased relational quality positively predicts all processes. Although many of the resilience processes are positively associated with increased health management and evaluations of dyadic coping, one process was negatively associated with both study outcomes. Implications, limitations, and future directions are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• Patient/partner communication
• cancer communication
• resilience
• communication theory of resilience
• dyadic communicative resilience scale

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Elizabeth Hintz for her efforts in survey design, particularly in managing participant eligibility.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 A full report of study demographics and cancer characteristic are available in Chernichky-Karcher et al. (2019).

2 Research supports the use of Mturk and similar platforms for collecting reliable data, and has increased utility in studying hard-to-reach populations (Smith, Sabat, Martinez, Weaver, & Xu, 2015).

3 Additional information is available from the first author.

4 The STATAIC 15 modification index suggested correlating the errors in two places. First, between items 3 (interesting, boring) and 4 (rewarding, disappointing) and second between items 5 (doesn’t give me much chance, brings out the best in me) and item 6 (lonely, friendly).

Additional information

Funding

The authors would like to thank the 2017 Central States Communication Association Federation Research Prize and a Purdue University College of Liberal Arts Aspire Grant (2017) funding sources.