Clinical trial · Interventional
Efficacy of a Dyadic Cancer-related Communication Reinforcement Intervention
Cancer-related Communication Between Patients and Their Caregivers: A Randomized Controlled Trial Assessing the Efficacy of a Dyadic Communication Reinforcement Intervention (DCRI)
- Source
- ClinicalTrials.gov
- Retrieved
- Sep 8, 2026
- Layer
- normalized (units and labels harmonized; values unchanged)
- Run
- ING-CLINICALTRIALS-20260908-000001
Summary
Brief summary (as posted)
Background: To face cancer-related stress, patients and caregivers activate individual and dyadic coping responses. Opened communication, adequate involvement, reciprocal supportive roles, self-disclosure and responsiveness enhance dyadic coping. Nevertheless, little is known about the optimal content of dyadic interventions designed to improve dyadic communication. Methods: A randomized controlled trail was designed to assess the efficacy of a dyadic intervention centered on a cancer-related communication reinforcement. Patient-caregiver dyads are randomly assigned to either an intervention group or a waiting list group. Patients and caregivers complete self-reported scales that assessed emotional distress, individual coping, cancer-related dyadic communication frequency, satisfaction, self-efficacy and coping at baseline and post-treatment (intervention group), or 6 weeks after baseline (waiting list group). This dyadic communication reinforcement intervention (DCRI) consists of a weekly 4-session intervention. This intervention includes specific communication tasks aiming the improvement of some cancer-related dyadic communication competencies such as concerns disclosure and request for support. Discussion: DCRI would lead to improvements in cancer-related dyadic communication self-efficacy, cancer-related dyadic communication satisfaction and dyadic coping.
Conditions
Conditions (2)
Free-text conditions as registered, with the CancerIndex entity they were reconciled to and the match type.
| Condition (as posted) | Mapped entity | Match | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cancer | Malignant Neoplasm | ALIAS | 0.90 |
| Communication Programs | — | UNRESOLVED | — |
Interventions
Interventions (1)
| Intervention | Type | Mapped drug | Match |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dyadic Communication Reinforcement Intervention | Behavioral | — | UNRESOLVED |
Design
Arms and outcomes
Arms (2)
- type
- EXPERIMENTAL
- label
- DCRI program
- description
- Patient-caregiver dyads will immediately attend the Dyadic communication reinforcement intervention. For both groups, first assessment time take place just after the enrollment, before the randomization. For this group, second assessment time take place 2 weeks post-intervention. Pre-post assessments consist in self-reported scales assessing emotional distress, individual coping, cancer-related dyadic communication frequency, satisfaction, self-efficacy and coping.
- interventionNames
- Behavioral: Dyadic Communication Reinforcement Intervention
- type
- NO_INTERVENTION
- label
- Waiting List
- description
- Patient-caregiver dyads are in a waiting condition for 6 weeks. They will attend the Intervention after the second assessment time if they want to. For both group, first assessment time take place just after the enrollment, before the randomization. For this group, second assessment time take place 6 weeks after first assessment time. First and second assessment consist in self-reported scales assessing emotional distress, individual coping, cancer-related dyadic communication frequency, satisfaction, self-efficacy and coping.
Primary outcomes (2)
Eligibility
Eligibility (as posted)
- Sex
- All
- Minimum age
- 18 Years
Show eligibility criteria text
Inclusion Criteria: * To read and speak French * To be aged 18 years old or more * To be diagnosed with any cancer type with a life expectancy of ≥ 6 months or be the caregiver of patients meeting this inclusion criteria * To benefit from a folfox, folfiri, folfirinox or folfiri+bevacizumab-type chemotherapy with a life expectancy of ≥ 6 months or be the caregiver of patients meeting this inclusion criteria Exclusion Criteria: * Not be treated for a psychiatric disorder
References
Publications (14)
- BACKGROUNDLee E, Roberts LJ. (2018). Between individual and family coping: a decade of theory and research on couples coping with health-related stress. Journal of Family Theory & Review 10: 141-164. doi: 10.1111/jftr.12252.
- BACKGROUNDKayser K, Watson LE, Andrade JT. (2007). Cancer as a "We-disease": examining the process of coping from a relational perspective. Family Systems & Health 25(4): 404-418.
- BACKGROUNDCandy B, Jones L, Drake R, Leurent B, King M. Interventions for supporting informal caregivers of patients in the terminal phase of a disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jun 15;2011(6):CD007617. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007617.pub2. PMID 21678368
- BACKGROUNDLi Q, Loke AY. A literature review on the mutual impact of the spousal caregiver-cancer patients dyads: 'communication', 'reciprocal influence', and 'caregiver-patient congruence'. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2014 Feb;18(1):58-65. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2013.09.003. Epub 2013 Oct 4. PMID 24100089
- BACKGROUNDSong L, Rini C, Ellis KR, Northouse LL. Appraisals, perceived dyadic communication, and quality of life over time among couples coping with prostate cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2016 Sep;24(9):3757-65. doi: 10.1007/s00520-016-3188-0. Epub 2016 Apr 2. PMID 27039207
- BACKGROUNDBadr H, Krebs P. A systematic review and meta-analysis of psychosocial interventions for couples coping with cancer. Psychooncology. 2013 Aug;22(8):1688-704. doi: 10.1002/pon.3200. Epub 2012 Oct 9. PMID 23045191
- BACKGROUNDWaldron EA, Janke EA, Bechtel CF, Ramirez M, Cohen A. A systematic review of psychosocial interventions to improve cancer caregiver quality of life. Psychooncology. 2013 Jun;22(6):1200-7. doi: 10.1002/pon.3118. Epub 2012 Jun 25. PMID 22729992
- BACKGROUNDManne SL, Ostroff JS, Norton TR, Fox K, Goldstein L, Grana G. Cancer-related relationship communication in couples coping with early stage breast cancer. Psychooncology. 2006 Mar;15(3):234-47. doi: 10.1002/pon.941.