Predictors of dyadic planning: Perspectives of prostate cancer survivors and their partners. Issue 1 (15th October 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Keller, Jan; Wiedemann, Amelie U.; Hohl, Diana Hilda; Scholz, Urte; Burkert, Silke; Schrader, Mark; Knoll, Nina
• Is Part Of: British journal of health psychology. Volume 22:Issue 1(2017)
• Page Start: 42
• Page End: 59
• Publication Date: 2016-10-15
• Subjects: dyadic planning -- individual planning -- predictors -- prostate cancer; Clinical health psychology -- Periodicals; 613.019
• DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12216
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1359-107X

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: Extending individual planning of health behaviour change to the level of the dyad, dyadic planning refers to a target person and a planning partner jointly planning the target person's health behaviour change. To date, predictors of dyadic planning have not been systematically investigated. Integrating cognitive predictors of individual planning with four established predictor domains of social support provision, we propose a framework of predictors of dyadic planning. Including target persons' and partners' perspectives, we examine these predictor domains in the context of prostate cancer patients' rehabilitative pelvic floor exercise (PFE) following radical prostatectomy. Design: Longitudinal data from 175 patients and their partners were analysed in a study with four post‐surgery assessments across 6 months. Methods: PFE‐related dyadic planning was assessed from both partners together with indicators from four predictor domains: context, target person, partner, and relationship factors. Individual planning and social support served as covariates. Results: Findings from two‐level models nesting repeated assessments in individuals showed that context (patients' incontinence), target person (i.e., positive affect and self‐efficacy), and relationship factors (i.e., relationship satisfaction) were uniquely associated with dyadic planning, whereas partner factors (i.e., positive and negative affects) were not. Factors predicting patients' and partners' accounts of dyadic planning differed. Conclusions: Resembling prior findings on antecedents of support provision in this context, partner factors did not prevail as unique predictors of dyadic planning, whereas indicators from all other predictor domains did. To establish predictive direction, future work should use lagged predictions with shorter intermeasurement intervals. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Dyadic planning has been shown to be linked to health behaviour change. However, its role in behaviour regulation frameworks is not well investigated, especially regarding factors that might be predictive of dyadic planning. What does this study add? A framework of predictors of dyadic planning in the health behaviour change process is presented. The framework is investigated accounting for both planning partners' perspectives. Context, target person, and relationship factors were related to dyadic planning.