Intrapersonal and interpersonal consequences of protective buffering among cancer patients and caregivers

Authors

  • Shelby L. Langer PhD,

    Corresponding author
    1. School of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
    2. Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington
    • University of Washington Box 354900, 4101 15th Avenue NE, Seattle, WA 98105
    Search for more papers by this author
    • Fax: (206) 543-1228

  • Jonathon D. Brown PhD,

    1. Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Karen L. Syrjala PhD

    1. Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington
    2. Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
    Search for more papers by this author

  • Cosponsored by the National Cancer Institute's Office of Cancer Survivorship, the Office of Cancer Survivorship of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Cancer Society's Behavioral Research Center.

  • Presented at the Fourth Biennial Cancer Survivorship Research Conference entitled “Cancer Survivorship Research: Mapping the New Challenges,” Atlanta, Georgia, June 18-20, 2008.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Protective buffering refers to hiding cancer-related thoughts and concerns from one's spouse or partner. In this study, the authors examined the intrapersonal and interpersonal consequences of protective buffering and the motivations for such behavior (desire to shield partner from distress, desire to shield self from distress).

METHODS:

Eighty hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients and their spousal caregivers/partners completed measures that were designed to assess protective buffering and relationship satisfaction at 2 time points: before transplantation (T1) and 50 days after transplantation (T2). Overall mental health also was assessed at T2.

RESULTS:

There was moderate agreement between 1 dyad member's reported buffering of their partner and the partner's perception of the extent to which they felt buffered. Caregivers buffered patients more than patients buffered caregivers, especially at T2. The more participants buffered their partners at T2 and the more they felt buffered, the lower their concurrent relationship satisfaction and the poorer their mental health. The latter effect was particularly true for patients who buffered and for patients who felt buffered. With respect to motivations, patients who buffered primarily to protect their partner at T1 reported increases in relationship satisfaction over time; however, when they did so at T2, their caregiver reported concurrent decreases in relationship satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS:

Protective buffering is costly, in that those who buffer and those who feel buffered report adverse psychosocial outcomes. In addition, buffering enacted by patients with an intention to help may prove counterproductive, ultimately hurting the object of such protection. Cancer 2009;115(18 suppl):4311–25. © 2009 American Cancer Society.

Ancillary