Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Allografting

Validating the positive impact of in-hospital lay care-partner support on patient survival in allogeneic BMT: a prospective study

Bone Marrow Transplantation volume 48, pages 671–677 (2013)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

This prospective study validates the finding from retrospective research that having an inpatient lay care-partner (CP) is associated with better survival following allogeneic BMT. Compared with patients without a CP (n=76), patients with a CP (n=88) have significantly better OS (P=0.017) and relapse-free survival (RFS) (P=0.020). Four-year and median survivals were 42% and 36 months among patients with CPs, compared with 26% and 10 months among those without CPs. Four-year survival and median RFS were 39% and 25 months among those with CPs, compared with 23% and 7 months among those without CPs. Further, better survival and RFS were associated with CP visit duration of >3 h per day (P=0.005 and P=0.007, respectively) and with CP frequency of visits >75% of inpatient days (P=0.004 and P=0.010, respectively). A CP support program should encourage not only presence of a CP but also duration and frequency of CP visits associated with better patient survival.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Foster LW, McLellan LJ, Rybicki LA, Sassano DA, Hsu A, Bolwell BJ . Survival of patients who have undergone allogeneic bone marrow transplantation: the relative importance of in-hospital lay care-partner support. J Psychosoc Oncol 2004; 22: 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baum A, Posluszny DM . Traumatic stress as a target for intervention with cancer patients. In: Baum A, Andersen BL, (eds).. Psychosocial Interventions for Cancer. American Psychological Association: Washington DC, 2001 pp 143–173.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Gurevich M, Devins GM, Rodin GM . Stress response syndromes and cancer: Conceptual and assessment issues. Psychosomatics 2002; 43: 259–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Jim HSL, Jacobsen PB . Posttraumatic stress and posttraumatic growth in cancer survivorship: A review. Cancer J 2008; 14: 414–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bolund C . Crisis and coping-learning to live with cancer. In: Holland JC, Zittoun R, (eds).. Psychosocial Aspects of Oncology. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 1990 pp 13–26.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Henoch I, Danielson E . Existential concerns among patients with cancer and interventions to meet them: an integrative literature review. Psycho-Oncol 2009; 18: 225–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lai H, Lai S, Krongrad A, Trapido E, Page JB, McCoy CB . The effect of marital status on survival in late stage cancer patients: an analysis based on surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) data, in the United States. Int J Behav Med 1999; 6: 150–176.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kravdal O . The impact of marital status on cancer survival. Soc Sci Med 2001; 52: 357–368.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Goodwin JS, Hunt WC, Key CR, Samet JM . The effect of marital status on stage, treatment, and survival of cancer patients. JAMA 1987; 258: 3125–3130.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Pistrang N, Barker C . The partner relationship in psychological response to breast cancer. Soc Sci Med 1995; 40: 789–797.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Weihs KL, Enright TM, Simmens SJ . Close relationships and emotional processing predict decreased mortality in women with breast cancer: Preliminary evidence. Psychosom Med 2008; 70: 117–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Reynolds P, Hurley S, Torres M, Jackson J, Boyd P, Chen VW . Use of coping strategies and breast cancer survival: results from the black/white cancer survival study. Am J Epidemiol 2000; 152: 940–949.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Harris JC, DeAngelis CD . The power of hope. JAMA 2008; 300: 2919–2920.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Beauregard M . Mind does really matter: evidence from neuroimaging studies of emotional self-regulation, psychotherapy, and placebo effect. Prog Neurobiol 2007; 81: 218–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Colloca L, Benedetti F . Placebos and painkillers: is mind as real as matter? Nat Rev Neurosci 2005; 6: 545–552.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Haour F . Mechanisms of the placebo effect and of conditioning. Neuroimmunomodulation 2005; 12: 195–200.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Carter CS, Carter CS, Grippo AJ, Pournajafi-Nazarloo H, Ruscio MG, Porges SW . Oxytocin, vasopressin and sociality. Prog Brain Res 2008; 170: 331–336.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Coyne JC, DeLongis A . Going beyond social support: the role of social relationships in adaptation. J Consult Clin Psychol 1986; 54: 454–460.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Olbrisch ME, Levenson JL, Hamer R . The PACT: a rating scale for the study of clinical decision making in psychosocial screening of organ transplant candidates. Clin Transplant 1989; 3: 164–169.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Frick E, Ramm G, Bumeder I, Schulz-Kindermann F, Tyroller M, Fischer N . Social support and quality of life of patients prior to stem cell or bone marrow Transplantation. Br J Health Psychol 2006; 11: 451–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Frick E, Motzke C, Fischer N, Busch R, Bumeder I . Is perceived social support a predictor of survival for patients undergoing autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation? Psycho-Oncol 2005; 14: 759–770.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Galvin K, Todres L, Richardson M . The intimate mediator: a carer’s experience of Alzheimer’s. Scand J Caring Sciences 2005; 19: 2–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Justice B . Being well inside the self: a different measure of health. Adv Mind Body Med 1998; 14: 43–73.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Idler EL, Angel RJ . Self-rated health and mortality in the NHANES-1 epidemiologic follow-up study. Am J Public Health 1990; 80: 446–452.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Idler EL, Kasl S . Health perceptions and survival: Do global evaluations of health status really predict mortality? J Gerontol 1991; 46: S55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB . Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta- analytic review. Plos Med 2010; 7: 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Andrykowski MA, Brady MJ, Henslee-Downey PJ . Psychosocial factors predictive of survival after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation for leukemia. Psychosomatic 1994; 56: 432–439.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Colon EA, Callies A, Popkin M, McGlave P . Depressed mood and other variables related to bone marrow transplantation survival in acute leukemia. Psychosomatics 1991; 32: 420–425.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Rodrigue JR, Pearman TP, Moreb J . Morbidity and mortality following bone marrow transplantation: Predictive utility of pre-BMT affective functioning, compliance, and social support stability. Int J Behav Med 1999; 6: 241–254.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Leigh S, Wilson KCM, Burns R, Clark RE . Psychosocial morbidity in bone marrow transplant recipients: a prospective study. Bone Marrow Transplant 1995; 16: 635–640.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Foster LW, McLellan L, Rybicki L, Dabney J, Visnosky M, Bolwell B . Utility of the psychosocial assessment of candidates for transplantation (PACT) scale in allogeneic BMT. Bone Marrow Transplant 2009; 44: 375–380.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Social Work, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH, USA

    L W Foster

  2. Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

    L McLellan, J Dabney, E Copelan & B Bolwell

  3. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

    L Rybicki

Authors
  1. L W Foster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L McLellan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L Rybicki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J Dabney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. E Copelan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. B Bolwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L W Foster.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Foster, L., 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 48, 671–677 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2012.208

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2012.208

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links