Communal Coping and Adjustment to Chronic Illness: Theory Update and Evidence

Abstract

We present a theory of communal coping that describes an optimal pathway to patient adjustment among couples in which one person faces a chronic illness. Communal coping consists of a shared illness appraisal (i.e., person perceives illness as a joint rather than individual problem) and collaboration with a partner to manage the illness. We present a model of the communal coping process that links patient and partner shared illness appraisals to collaboration and a set of supportive interactions that might be reframed as collaboration in the presence of shared illness appraisals. We then outline a model that identifies potential antecedents of communal coping and mechanisms that link communal coping to patient illness adjustment (i.e., enhanced psychological well-being, improved health behaviors, better physical health) and partner psychological well-being. We review the empirical evidence for this model and conclude by identifying several moderator variables, noting potential limitations, and outlining future research directions.

We are in this together — Aren't we? Congruence of common dyadic coping and psychological distress of couples facing breast cancer

“…Couples also react as a system. Shared illness appraisals are linked with collaborative coping, which entails working together as a team and pooling resources to solve problems together …”

“…Shared illness appraisals are linked with collaborative coping, which entails working together as a team and pooling resources to solve problems together. 11 The STM defines collaborative coping as common dyadic coping (CDC), which occurs when both partners are feeling stressed. 5 In the context of cancer, CDC would be characterized by shared information seeking and shared decision making and planning, exchanging worries, and efforts to calm down.…”

Initial validation of the dyadic coping inventory for financial stress

“…Among the many available models to understand couples coping with stress, also known as dyadic coping, the systemic‐transactional model (STM; Bodenmann, ) offers the most comprehensive conceptualization of dyadic coping, particularly when stressors can affect both partners. Whereas other dyadic coping models such as the relationship‐focused model (RFM; Coyne & Smith, ), the communal coping model (CMM; Helgeson, Jakubiak, Van Vleet, & Zajdel, ), or the developmental‐contextual coping model (DCCM; Berg & Upchurch, ) have focused mostly on conceptualizing how couples cope with medical conditions, STM originated in the study of couples coping with minor chronic stressors and has been applied in the study of both medical and non‐medical stressors (Falconier, Jackson, Hilpert, & Bodenmann, ), making it a more suitable model to study couples coping with financial stress. Their major focus on coping with medical conditions has made RFM, communal coping model, and DCCM limit their conceptualizations to how one partner can provide support to a sick partner and/or how both partners can cooperate to help the sick partner adjust to a chronic illness.…”

Lower limb chronic edema management program: Perspectives of disengaged patients on challenges, enablers and barriers to program attendance and adherence

“…The study found that the enablers and barriers encompass physical, psychological and social factors impacting on the participants’ adherence to therapy. These factors entwined as complex multidimensional challenges that impacted participants adjusting to living with a chronic condition [29, 56, 57]. Importantly, some of the factors were internal (personal realm) and others as external factors beyond their control.…”

“…Importantly, some of the factors were internal (personal realm) and others as external factors beyond their control. On the personal level, having a supportive partner was found to positively facilitate communal coping [57] towards adjusting to CO. Externally, the major barrier for these participants was a lack of capacity to access the hospital physically to seek therapy. This is consistent with the LIMPRINT study where nearly one-third of the participants (35.5%) reported distance as preventing access to treatment [16].…”