Coping Assessment Tools in the Family Caregivers of Patients with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review

Figures & data

Figure 1 PRISMA flow diagram.

Table 1 Caregiver Coping Instruments

Reference	Year	Country	Scale Name	Initial Test Population	Items/Format	Reliability
Megan L. Robbins^Citation19	2019	USA	COPE	52 patients, and 51 spouses	Subscale consists of 4 items(Rated on a scale from 1 to 4,)	0.63–0.68
Karen Kayser & Chiara Acquati^Citation20	2019	USA	Dyadic Coping Scale	86 Breast cancer patients 86 Partners	61 items contains five subscales: Stress Communication, Common, Positive, Hostile and Avoidance of Dyadic Coping. (Likert scale ranging from “Never” 1 to “Always” 6	0.68–0.95
William T. Dalton^Citation21	2008	USA	1- The Profile of Mood States	71 patients, and 71 spouses	1-65-item instrument has 6 subscales(Likert scale)	0.94–0.97
			2-The Coping responses Inventory		2-48-item measure is comprised of 8 scales((Likert scale)	0.63
			3-The Snyder Marital Disharmony Scale		3-This scale consists of 18 items assessing overt marital discord, perceived difficulty with problem solving, and disagreements regarding finances as well as parental and spouse roles	0.84
			4-The Sickness Impact Profile		4-This 136-item measure provides statements about health-related functioning in 12 domain	Physical subscale was 0.83, and the Psychosocial subscale was 0.88
Robbins, Megan L^Citation22	2012	USA	Electronically Activated Recorder	Fifty-six breast cancer patients And their spouses	the external microphone
			2- adjustment questionnaires		1-Psychological adjustment(Center for Epidemiologic Studies 2-Depression Scale (CES-D, Radloff, 1977), a 20-item) 3-Relationship adjustment. The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier &Thompson, 1982, a32-item scale with four subscales: consensus, tension, cohesion, and overall dyadic adjustment) 4-Physical Health. The 36-item Short Form (SF-36; Ware, et al, 1993). With four subscales, physical ability, energy, pain, and general health	(CES-D)=0.86–0.92
						(DAS)= 0.92–0.89
						(SF-36)= 0.94
Hasida Ben-Zur^Citation23	2001	Israel	Self-coping using the COPE scale	Seventy-three breast cancer patients and their spouses	1-A 30-item short Hebrew version of the COPE scale coping 2-problem-focused^Citation10 scale 3-The perceived other-coping emotion-focused^Citation24 scale	PF scale=patients being (alpha=0.73), and for spouses (alpha=0.82)
						EF scale patients (alpha = 0.79), and for spouses (alpha = 0.69)
			Distress was measured by the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI)		4-The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI). The BSI is a shortened version of the SCL-90-R with 53items and nine dimensions (likert)	BSI = 0.48-0.80
			Everyday functioning was assessed by the Psychosocial Adjustment (PSA) questionnaire		5-the Global Severity Index (GSI)	GSI score patients (alpha = 0.97), and for spouses (alpha=0.96).
					6-Psychosocial Adjustment (PSA) a 15-item scale measuring functioning in five domains(likert)	Patients (alpha =0.78), and for spouses (alphas.74).
Silvia M. Bigatti^Citation25	2011	USA	1-Copingvways of coping questionnaire	Husbands of women with breast cancer^Citation26 and without breast cancer^Citation12	1-Coping ways of coping questionnaire (66 items. Items are grouped into 8 subscales-four of which make up the problem focused coping scale and 4 make up the emotion-focused)	α = 0.83 for emotion-focused coping and α = 0.84 for problem focused coping.
			2- Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale(CES-D)		2-CES-D= 20-item(likert)	α = 0.89
			3- the Subjective Stress Scale		3-subjective stress scale= 4-item(likert)	α= 0.83
			4- the Satisfaction With Life Scale		4-satisfaction with life scale 5-item(likert)	α = 0.88
			5- the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test		5-marital satisfactionvlocke-wallace marital adjustment test=15 items	α = 0.70
					6-Burden= 1-Activities of Daily LivingVIllness Impact Form(ADLs) 2-Role Strains-Psychological Adjustment to Illness Scale 46-item includes 7 domains	1-ADLs α= 0.81 2- α = 0.54
			6- Measures of burden.
Silvia M. Bigatti^Citation27	2011	USA	1-Depression—Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D)	Husbands of women with breast cancer^Citation24 and without chronic illness^Citation22	1-(CES-D) This 20-item self-report instrument	CES_D,α=0.90
					2-67items	α=0.61 to α=0.79
			2-Coping—Ways of Coping Questionnaire Coping strategies
			3-Social support—Interpersonal Support Evaluation List		3-40-item	α=90
Bonnaud-Antignac, Angélique^Citation28	2012	France	1-Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (QLQ-C30)	100 patients and their caregivers	1-30 items
			2- Duke Health Profile and Ways of Coping Checklist(WCC)		1-DHP includes 17 items 2-WCC contains 27 items include 3 domain
						(1) emotion-centered coping (9items, alpha coefficient of 0.72) (2) problem-centered coping (10 items, alpha coefficient of 0.79) (3) social support-centered coping (8 items, alpha coefficient of 0.73).
Ross E. Carter^Citation29	1993	USA	Individual adjustment. 1-Symptom Check List - Revised (SCL 90-R)	14 couples	1-SCL 90-R is a 90-item	0.78–0.90
					2-PAIS is a 46-item	0.20–0.93
			2- Psychological Adjustment to Illness Scale (PAIS)
					Marital adjustment 1-DAS is a 32-item scale 2-FACES I11 contains 20 Likert-scale items	1-DAS=0.42 to 0.90
			Marital adjustment. 1- the Dyadic Adjustment Scale 2-the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale - 111 (FACES III) 3- the Clinical Rating Scale (CRS).			FACES I11=0.84
Barry Feldman^Citation30	2005	England	1-Emotional wellbeing was measured. Quality of Life Spouses Scale (QOL-SP)	71males	1-QOL-SP=13-item	0.92
					2-IIRS=13-item	0.88
			2-Illness intrusiveness was measured with the Illness Intrusiveness Rating Scale (IIRS)
					3-22-item	0.90
			3-Mutuality Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire (MPDQ)
					4-61-item
			4-Dyadic Coping Dyadic Coping Scale (DCS)			0.63
Barry N. Feldman^Citation31	2006	England	1-Quality of Life Spouses Scale (QOL-SP)	71 male	1-QOL-SP consists of 13 items	0.92
			2-Illness Intrusiveness Rating Scale (IIRS)		2-IIRS consists of 12 item	0.88
			3- Dyadic Coping Dyadic Coping Scale (DCS)
					3-61-item	0.63
Jennifer harkness Hodgson^Citation32	2003	USA	1-the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)	20 patients and 22 non-breast cancer patients,	1- ….	0.88
					2- …	0.85
			2-The Dyadic Adjustment Scale
					3-36-item	0.86
			3-Short-Form Health Survey
Alexander Karan^Citation33	2017	USA	Electronically Activated Recorder	52 couples		0.80–0.98
					DAS=32 items with likert scale
			Dyadic Adjustment Scale
Trace Kershaw^Citation34	2004	USA	COPE scale	200 women and 200 of their family caregivers	60-item	0.63–0.81 for patients 0.71–0.79 for family caregivers
			Quality of life^Citation12		36 items	0.72 for patients and 0.71 for family caregivers
Sedigheh Khanjari^Citation9	2012	Persian	1-Persian version of Caregiver Quality of Life Index-Cance	150 family caregivers	1-consists of 35 items	0.89
					2-consists of 13-item	T1 and T2 were 0.81 and 0.79
			2- Sense of Coherence Scale
					3-consists of 10-item	0.82 at T1 and 0.84 at T2
			3-Spirituality Perspective Scale(SPS)
					4-consists of 14 items	0.82 and 0.80 at T1 and T2
			4-Religious Coping Scale (RCOPE)
			5-The Health Index		5-HI consists of 9 items	0.77 at T1 and 0.79 at T2
Sharon Manne^Citation24	2014	USA	1-Partner unsupportive behaviors	330 patients and their spouses	1-consisted of 13 items	0.91 for both patient and spouse
			2-Holding back sharing concerns. (adapted from Pistrang and Barker)		2-A 6-item scale	Patients 0.84, for spouses 0.81.
					3-	0.61 for both patient and spouse
			3- Mental disengagement subscale of the COPE was used (Carver et al, 1993)
					4-item scale	0.60 for both patient and spouse
			4- Behavioral disengagement
					5-14-item	0.95 for patients and 0.94 for spouses
			5-Global well-being.		6-14-item
			6-Cancer distress. Intmsions subscale of the IES (Horowitz, Wilner, & Alvarez, 1979)			0.91 for both patient and spouse
Suzanne Nikoletti^Citation35	2003	Australia	Family Inventory of Needs–Primary Caregivers (FIN–PC)	141 primary family caregivers	30-item	0.94
						0.76 and 0.79
			MBSS, which is designed to identify the informational coping style of respondents (Miller, 1987; Miller & Mangan, 1983)
Laurel l. Northouse^Citation36	1995	USA	Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ)	81patients and 74spouses	34-item	0.87 for patients and 0.86 for husbands
			Uncertainty, Mishel Uncertainty in Illness Scale (MUIS) for patients and the Uncertainty in Illness Scale for family members (PCUS)		31-item	MUIS=0.90 PCUS=0.89
					13-item	0.84 for patients and 0.85 for spouses
			Symptom Distress Scale (SDS)
			Beck Hopelessness Scale		20-item	0.85 for patients and 0.83 for husbands
			The Brief Symptom Inventory(BSI)		53-item in nine subscales	0.93 for patients and 0.94 for husbands
			The Psychosocial Adjustment to Illness Scale (PALS)		46-item	0.90 for patients and 0.90 for husbands
Amy K. Otto^Citation37	2015	USA	Daily capitalization and social support attempts(Patients and spouses completed daily diaries each evening that included lists of negative and positive events)	99 couples	With 12 items assessed Positive and Negative Affect Form (PANAS-X; Watson & Clark, 1994)	0.76 and 0.72 for patient and spouse NA 0.80 and 0.81 for patient and spouse PA
			the Dyadic Adjustment Scale
Nelson Chun YiuYeung^Citation38	2015	China	1-Caregiver guilt	176husbands	1-2-item scale with Likert scale	0.84
			2-Caregiver Reaction assessment Scale (CRA) (Nijboer, Triemstra, Tempelaar, Sanderman, & van den Bos, 1999)		2-Likert scale	0.86
			3-Couple Satisfaction Index (CSI) (Funk & Rogge, 2007)		3-4-item	0.94
			4-Cancer Perceived Agents of Social Support (CPASS) (Goldzweig et al, 2010)		4-2-item with Likert scale	0.91
					5-9-item scale	0.85
			5- participants’ protective buffering behaviours (Suls, Green, Rose, Lounsbury, & Gordon, 1997)
					6-Likert scale	0.72
			6-Brief COPE (Carver, 1997)
			7- Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46 (CMNI-46) (Parent & Moradi, 2009		7-2-item with Likert scale	0.84
			8-General health status subscale^Citation12 (Ware, Kosinski, & Dewey, 2003)		8-36-item	0.80
Megan L. Robbins^Citation39	2012	USA	1-Family Environment Scale((FES)	127 spouses and families	1-FES=9 items	0.69
			2-Dyadic Adjustment Scale		2-DAS is a 32-item	0.94
			3- and patient Profile of Mood States(POMS)		3-POMS=15items	0.95
Megan L. Robbins^Citation40	2014	USA	EAR device	56 couples
			Psychological adjustment(CES-D, Radloff, 1977)		20-item
Megan L. Robbins^Citation41	2018	USA	Electronically Activated Recorder	Fifty-two couples
					20-item
			Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D)
Rottmann Nina^Citation42	2015	Denmark	1-Dyadic coping was assessed using the Dyadic Coping Inventory (Bodenmann, 2008).	538 couples	1-37-item	0.69–0.85
					2-20 items	0.90
			2- The Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale (Radloff, 1977)
					3-Self-anchoring Scale(0–10)
			3- the Relationship Ladder (Kuijer, Buunk, De Jong, Ybema, &Sanderman, 2004)
Karine Baumstarck^Citation43	2017	French	1-French version of the Brief COPE	398 Patient and caregiver	Includes 28 items	0.7
			2-quality of life^Citation12 using the French version of the
			Short form health survey questionnaire		SF36 contains 36 items describing 8 dimensions
Jennifer L. Scott^Citation44	2004	Australia	Couple communication (using videotapes) Coping, psychological distress, sexual functioning, and body image	94 women and their partners
					2-WOC–CA, 44-item	0.87–0.96
			2-Coping Questionnaire—Cancer Version(WOC–CA)		3-Psychological Distress subscale (seven items) the Sexual Difficulties subscale (six items)	0.87–0.95 0.81–0.86
			3-Psychosocial Adjustment to Illness Scale—Self Report (PAIS–SR; L. P. Derogatis, 1986)
			4-the Impact of Event Scale (IES; Horowitz, Wimer, & Alvarez, 1979)		4-15 items	0.80–0.91
			5-The Sexual Self Schema Scale (SSS) for Women (Andersen & Cyranowski,1994)
					5-50-items	0.78–0.82
			6-the Brief Index of Sexual Functioning (BISF; Leiblum & Rosen, 2000)		6-30-items	0.62-0.95
			7-Client satisfaction questionnaire (CSQ)		7-13 items	0.85
Northouse, Laurel L^Citation45	1998	USA	1-Smilkstein Stress Scale (Smilkstein and Zimlich, 1990)	131 couples	1-18-item	0.70 to 0.79 for patients and husbands
			2-Dyadic Adjustment Scale,		2-32-item	From.92 to.95 for patients and husbands
			3-Family APGAR(Smilkstein, 1978)		3-5-item	0.86–0.92
			4-Social Support Questionnaire(SSQ)		4- 24-item with Likert scale	0.86–0.94
			5- Mishel Uncertainty in Illness Scale(Mishel, 1981)		5-13-item	0.79–0.86
			6- Beck Hopelessness Scale(Beck et al, 1974)		6-20-item	0.80–0.85
			7-Brief Symptom Inventory (Derogatis and Melisaratos, 1983)		7- 53-item	0.95–0.96
			8-Psychosocial Adjustment to Illness Scale (Morrow et al, 1978)		8-46-item	0.81–0.94
Hasida Ben-Zur^Citation26	2001	Israel	1-COPE scale.	73 patients with breast cancer and their spouses	1- A 30-item short Hebrew version of the COPE scale
			2-Distress was measured by the Brief Symptom inventory (BSI)
					2- The BSI is a shortened version of the SCL-90-R with 53 items	0.48–0.80
			3- Global Severity Index (GSI)
			4- everyday functioning was assessed by the Psychosocial Adjustment (PSA) questionnaire.		3-GSI	Patients 0.97, and for spouses 0.96
					4- 56-item questionnaire	Patients 0.78 and for spouses 0.74

YeungNCYAdjustment to caregiving among husbands of women with breast cancer in China: application of the stress and coping model[Ph.D.]. Ann Arbor, University of Houston; 2015.

 Google Scholar

RobbinsML, WrightRC, María LópezA, WeihsK. Interpersonal positive reframing in the daily lives of couples coping with breast cancer. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2019;37(2):160–177. doi:10.1080/07347332.2018.155519830741121

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

KayserK, AcquatiC. The influence of relational mutuality on dyadic coping among couples facing breast cancer. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2019;37(2):194–212. doi:10.1080/07347332.2019.156680930822220

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

DaltonWTP, NelsonDVP, BrobstJBP, LindsayJEP, FriedmanLCP. Psychosocial variables associated with husbands’ adjustment three months following wives’ diagnosis of breast cancer. J Cancer Educ. 2007;22(4):245–249. doi:10.1007/BF0317412418067437

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

RobbinsMLA social interaction analysis of the daily conversations of couples coping with breast cancer[Ph.D.]. Ann Arbor, The University of Arizona; 2012. doi:10.1094/PDIS-11-11-0999-PDN

 Google Scholar

ElsheshtawyEA, Abo-ElezWF, AshourHS, FaroukO, El ZaafaranyMI. Coping strategies in egyptian ladies with breast cancer. Breast Cancer J. 2014;8:97–102.

 Google Scholar

Ben-ZurH, GilbarO, LevS. Coping with breast cancer: patient, spouse, and dyad models. Psychosom Med. 2001;63(1):32–39. doi:10.1097/00006842-200101000-0000411211062

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

BigattiSM, WagnerCD, Lydon-LamJR, SteinerJL, MillerKD. Depression in husbands of breast cancer patients: relationships to coping and social support. Supp Care Cancer J. 2011;19(4):455–466. doi:10.1007/s00520-010-0835-8

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

BigattiSM, BrownLF, SteinerJL, MillerKD. Breast cancer in a wife: how husbands cope and how well it works. Cancer Nurs J. 2011;34(3):193–201. doi:10.1097/NCC.0b013e3181ef094c

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

WagnerCD, BigattiSM, StornioloAM. Quality of life of husbands of women with breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology. 2006;15(2):109–120. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-161115852406

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

CarterRE, CarterCA, SiliunasM. Marital adaptation and interaction of couples after a mastectomy. J Psychosoc Oncol. 1993;11(2):69–82. doi:10.1300/J077V11N02_04

 Google Scholar

FeldmanB, BroussardCA. The influence of relational factors on men’s adjustment to their partners’ newly-diagnosed breast cancer. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2005;23(2–3):23–43. doi:10.1300/J077v23n02_0316492650

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

FeldmanBN, BroussardCA. Men’s adjustment to their partners’ breast cancer: a dyadic coping perspective. Health Soc Work. 2006;31(2):117–127. doi:10.1093/hsw/31.2.11716776029

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

KershawT, NorthouseL, KritprachaC, SchafenackerA, MoodD. Coping strategies and quality of life in women with advanced breast cancer and their family caregivers. Psychol Health. 2004;19(2):139–155. doi:10.1080/08870440310001652687

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

OttoAK, LaurenceauJP, SiegelSD, BelcherAJ. Capitalizing on everyday positive events uniquely predicts daily intimacy and well-being in couples coping with breast cancer. J Family Psychol. 2015;29(1):69–79. doi:10.1037/fam0000042

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

RobbinsML, MehlMR, SmithHL, WeihsKL. Linguistic indicators of patient, couple, and family adjustment following breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology. 2013;22(7):1501–1508. doi:10.1002/pon.316122887054

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ScottJL, HalfordWK, WardBG. United we stand? The effects of a couple-coping intervention on adjustment to early stage breast or gynecological cancer. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2004;72(6):1122. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.72.6.112215612858

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

NorthouseLL, TemplinT, MoodD, OberstM. Couples’ adjustment to breast cancer and benign breast disease: A longitudinal analysis. Psycho‐Oncology. 1998;7(1):37–48.9516649

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

KhanjariS, OskouieF, Langius-EklofA. Lower sense of coherence, negative religious coping, and disease severity as indicators of a decrease in quality of life in Iranian family caregivers of relatives with breast cancer during the first 6 months after diagnosis. Cancer Nurs J. 2012;35(2):148–156. doi:10.1097/NCC.0b013e31821f1dda

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bonnaud-AntignacA, HardouinJ-B, LegerJ, DravetF, SebilleV. Quality of life and coping of women treated for breast cancer and their caregiver. What are the interactions?J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2012;19(3):320–328. doi:10.1007/s10880-012-9300-922669411

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jennifer HarknessH, ShieldsCG, RousseauSL. Disengaging communication in later-life couples coping with breast cancer. Families Syst Health J. 2003;21(2):145. doi:10.1037/1091-7527.21.2.145

 Google Scholar

KaranA, WrightRC, RobbinsML. Everyday emotion word and personal pronoun use reflects dyadic adjustment among couples coping with breast cancer. Pers Relatsh. 2017;24(1):36–48. doi:10.1111/pere.2017.24.issue-1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ManneS, KashyDA, SiegelS, Myers VirtueS, HeckmanC, RyanD. Unsupportive partner behaviors, social-cognitive processing, and psychological outcomes in couples coping with early stage breast cancer. J Fam Psychol Journal. 2014;28(2):214–224. doi:10.1037/a0036053

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

NikolettiS, KristjansonLJ, TatarynD, McPheeI, BurtL. Information needs and coping styles of primary family caregivers of women following breast cancer surgery. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2003;30:987–996. doi:10.1188/03.ONF.987-99614603356

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

NorthouseLL, DorrisG, Charron-MooreC. Factors affecting couples’ adjustment to recurrent breast cancer. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41(1):69–76. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(94)00302-A7667674

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

RobbinsML, LopezAM, WeihsKL, MehlMR. Cancer conversations in context: naturalistic observation of couples coping with breast cancer. J Family Psychol. 2014;28(3):380–390. doi:10.1037/a0036458

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

RottmannN, HansenDG, LarsenPV, et al. Dyadic coping within couples dealing with breast cancer: A longitudinal, population-based study. Health Psychol. 2015;34(5):486–495. doi:10.1037/hea000021825730611

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

BaumstarckK, AlessandriniM, HamidouZ, AuquierP, LeroyT, BoyerL. Assessment of coping: a new french four-factor structure of the brief COPE inventory. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):8. doi:10.1186/s12955-016-0581-928077139

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ben-ZurH. Your coping strategy and my distress: inter-spouse perceptions of coping and adjustment among breast cancer patients and their spouses. Families Syst Health. 2001;19(1):83–94. doi:10.1037/h0089465

 Google Scholar

RobbinsML, KaranA, LópezAM, WeihsKL. Naturalistically observing noncancer conversations among couples coping with breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology. 2018;27(9):2206–2213. doi:10.1002/pon.479729904980

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar