Facilitators and obstacles to couples’ intimacy after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A qualitative study

References

• Niederwieser D, Baldomero H, Szer J, et al. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation activity worldwide in 2012 and a SWOT analysis of the Worldwide Network for Blood and Marrow Transplantation Group including the global survey. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016;51(6):778–785. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2016.18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowan AJ, Baldomero H, Atsuta Y, et al. The global state of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: an analysis of the Worldwide Network of Blood and Marrow Transplantation (WBMT) database and the global burden of disease study. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2020;26(12):2372–2372. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2020.08.018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alnasser Q, Deen Abu K, Attia M, et al. The lived experience of autologous stem cell-transplanted patients: post-transplantation and before discharge. J Clin Nurs. 2018;27(7-8):e1508–e1518. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14276
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamm W, Wohlfarth P, Bojic M, et al. Outcome in multiple myeloma patients eligible for stem cell transplantation: a single-center experience. Oncology. 2015;89(4):196–204. doi:https://doi.org/10.1159/000437055
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mosher CE, Redd WH, Rini CM, et al. Physical, psychological, and social sequelae following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a review of the literature. Psychooncology. 2009;18(2):113–127. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1399
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heydari K, Shamshirian A, Lotfi-Foroushani P, et al. The risk of malignancies in patients receiving hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Transl Oncol. 2020;22(10):1825–1837. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-020-02322-w
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beattie S, Lebel S, Tay J. The influence of social support on hematopoietic stem cell transplantation survival: a systematic review of literature. Plos One. 2013;8(4):e61586doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061586
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang Y, Wang H, Niu M, et al. Longitudinal analysis of the relationships between social support and health-related quality of life in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Cancer Nurs. 2019;42(3):251–257. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0000000000000616
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg C, Upchurch R. A developmental-contextual model of couples coping with chronic illness across the adult life span. Psychol Bull. 2007;133(6):920–954. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.6.920
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rolland JS. Chronic illness and the life cycle: a conceptual framework. Fam Process. 1987;26(2):203–221. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1987.00203.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beattie S, Lebel S. The experience of caregivers of hematological cancer patients undergoing a hematopoietic stem cell transplant: a comprehensive literature review. Psychooncology. 2011;20(11):1137–1150. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1962
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabo B, McLeod D, Couban S. The experience of caring for a spouse undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: opening Pandora’s box. Cancer Nurs. 2013;36(1):29–40. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0b013e31824fe223
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster LW, McLellan L, Rybicki L, et al. Validating the positive impact of in-hospital lay care-partner support on patient survival in allogeneic BMT: a prospective study. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48(5):671–677. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2012.208
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamore K, Flahault C, Fasse L, Untas A. Waiting for breast reconstruction: An interpretative phenomenological analysis of heterosexual couples’ experiences of mastectomy for breast cancer. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2019;42:42–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reblin M, Otto AK, Ketcher D, et al. In-home conversations of couples with advanced cancer: support has its costs. Psychooncology. 2020;29(8):1280–1287. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.5416
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fife BL, Monahan PO, Abonour R, et al. Adaptation of family caregivers during the acute phase of adult BMT. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2009;43(12):959–966. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2008.405
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Q, Mak Y, Loke A. Spouses’ experience of caregiving for cancer patients: a literature review. Int Nurs Rev. 2013;60(2):178–187. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12000.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manne SL, Siegel S, Kashy D, et al. Cancer-specific relationship awareness, relationship communication, and intimacy among couples coping with early stage breast cancer. J Soc Pers Relat. 31(3):314–334. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407513494950
   Google Scholar
• Booker R, Walker L, Raffin Bouchal S. Sexuality after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A mixed methods study. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2019;39:10–20. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2019.01.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyle D, Blodgett L, Gnesdiloff S, et al. Caregiver quality of life after autologous bone marrow transplantation. Cancer Nurs. 2000;23(3):193–203. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/00002820-200006000-00006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakraborty R, Hamilton BK, Hashmi SK, et al. Health-related quality of life after autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018;24(8):1546–1553. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.03.027
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez Varela V, Zhou E, Bober SL. Management of sexual problems in cancer patients and survivors. Curr Probl Cancer. 2013;37(6):319–352. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2013.10.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Brien K, Roe B, Low C, et al. An exploration of the perceived changes in intimacy of patients’ relationships following head and neck cancer. J Clin Nurs. 2012;21(17-18):2499–2508. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04162.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manne S, Badr H, Zaider T, et al. Cancer-related communication, relationship intimacy, and psychological distress among couples coping with localized prostate cancer. J Cancer Surviv. 2010;4(1):74–85. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-009-0109-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurenceau J, Kleinman BM. 2006. Intimacy in personal relationships. In: Vangelisti AL, Perlman D, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press:637–653.
   Google Scholar
• Barsky Reese J, Porter LS, Casale KE, et al. Adapting a couple-based intimacy enhancement intervention to breast cancer: a developmental study. Health Psychol. 2016;35(10):1085–1096. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000413
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barsky Reese J, Porter LS, Regan KR, et al. A randomized pilot trial of a telephone-based couples intervention for physical intimacy and sexual concerns in colorectal cancer. Psychooncology. 2014;23(9):1005–1013. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3508
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bossio JA, Higano CS, Brotto LA. Preliminary development of a mindfulness-based group therapy to expand couples’ sexual intimacy after prostate cancer: a mixed methods approach. Sex Med. 2021;9(2):100310. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esxm.2020.100310
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cullen K, Fergus K. Acceptability of an online relational intimacy and sexual enhancement (iRISE) intervention after breast cancer. J Marital Fam Ther. 2021;47(2):515–532. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12516
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonsdottir JI, Vilhjalmsson R, Svavarsdottir EK. The benefit of a couple-based intervention among women in active cancer treatment on sexual concerns: a quasi-experimental study. Cancer Nurs. 2021;44(6):E589–E599. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0000000000000949
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonsdottir JI, Vilhjalmsson R, Svavarsdottir EK. Effectiveness of a couple-based intervention on sexuality and intimacy among women in active cancer treatment: a quasi-experimental study. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2021;52:101975. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2021.101975
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manne SL, Kashy DA, Zaider T, et al. Couple-focused interventions for men with localized prostate cancer and their spouses: a randomized clinical trial. Br J Health Psychol. 2019;24(2):396–418. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12359
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Defossez G, Guyader L, Peyrou S, Uhry Z, et al. Estimations nationales de l’incidence et de la mortalité par cancer en France métropolitaine entre 1990 et 2018. Volume 1: tumeurs solides. Saint‐Maurice, France: Santé publique France; 2019:372.
   Google Scholar
• Monnereau A, Uhry Z, Bossard N, et al. Survie des personnes atteintes de cancer en France métropolitaine 1989-2013. Étude à partir des registres des cancers du réseau Francim. Partie 2: hémopathies malignes. Saint‐Maurice, France: Institut de Veille Sanitaire; 2016:144.
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, et al. Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245–1251. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. 2009. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. London: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Morris SM. Joint and individual interviewing in the context of cancer. Qual Health Res. 2001;11(4):553–567. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/104973201129119208
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18(1):59–82. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polit DF, Beck CT, Hungler BP. 2001. Essentials of Nursing Research: Methods, Appraisal and Utilization. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
   Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res in Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. doi:https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063o
   Google Scholar
• Tobin GA, Begley CM. Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework. J Adv Nurs. 2004;48(4):388–396. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03207.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tufford L, Newman PA. Bracketing in qualitative research. Qual Soc Work. 2012;11(1):80–96. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010368316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manne S, Kashy DA, Zaider T, et al. Interpersonal processes and intimacy among men with localized prostate cancer and their partners. J Fam Psychol. 2018;32(5):664–675. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000404
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reis HT, Shaver P. Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In: Duck S, Hay DF, Hobfoll SE, Ickes W, Montgomery BM, eds. Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory, Research and Interventions. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 1988:367–389.
   Google Scholar
• Hawkins Y, Ussher J, Gilbert E, et al. Changes in sexuality and intimacy after the diagnosis and treatment of cancer: the experience of partners in a sexual relationship with a person with cancer. Cancer Nurs. 2009;32(4):271–280. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0b013e31819b5a93
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traa MJ, De Vries J, Bodenmann G, et al. Dyadic coping and relationship functioning in couples coping with cancer: a systematic review. Br J Health Psychol. 2015;20(1):85–114. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12094
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langer SL, Brown JD, Syrjala KL. Intrapersonal and interpersonal consequences of protective buffering among cancer patients and caregivers. Cancer. 2009;115(18 Suppl):4311–4325. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24586
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perndorfer C, Sorian EC, Siegel SD, et al. Everyday protective buffering predicts intimacy and fear of cancer recurrence in couples coping with early-stage breast cancer. Psychooncology. 2019;28(2):317–323. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4942
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Overall NC, McNulty JK. What type of communication during conflict is beneficial for intimate relationships? Curr Opin Psychol. 2017;13:1–5. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ussher JM, Perz J, Gilbert E, et al. Perceived causes and consequences of sexual changes after cancer for women and men: a mixed method study. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:268. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1243-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LeBlanc TW, Abernethy AP, Casarett DJ. What is different about patients with hematologic malignancies? A retrospective cohort study of cancer patients referred to a hospice research network. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2015;49(3):505–512. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fasse L, Sultan S, Flahault C. Expérience de pré-deuil à l’approche du décès de son conjoint: une analyse phénoménologique interprétative. Psychologie Française. 2013;58(3):177–194. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psfr.2013.02.001
   Google Scholar
• Goldzweig G, Baider L, Andritsch E, Rottenberg Y. Hope and social support in elderly patients with cancer and their partners: an actor-partner interdependence model. Future Oncol. 2016;12(24):2801–2809. doi:https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2016-0267
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kayser K, Watson LE, Andrade JT. Cancer as a “we-disease”: examining the process of coping from a relational perspective. Fam Syst Health. 2007;25(4):404–418. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/1091-7527.25.4.404
   Google Scholar
• Manne S, Badr H. Intimacy and relationship processes in couples’ psychosocial adaptation to cancer. Cancer. 2008;112(11 Suppl):2541–2555. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23450
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bagarozzi DA. Intimacy: an integrative and dynamic process. In: Bagarozzi DA, ed. Enhancing Intimacy in Marriage: A Clinician’s Guide. New York, NY: Routledge; 2013:15–29.
   Google Scholar
• Doss BD, Simpson LE, Christensen A. Why do couples seek marital therapy? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 2004;35(6):608–614. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.35.6.608
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandura A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84(2):191–215. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asen E. Multiple family therapy: an overview. J Family Ther. 2002;24(1):3–16. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.00197
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar