Efficacy of a Partner Assistance Intervention Designed to Increase Skin Self-examination Performance

Robinson, June K.; Turrisi, Rob; Stapleton, Jerod L.

doi:10.1001/archderm.143.1.37

Cited by 83 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

105

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The sample size ranged from 39 couples (Burke et al ., 1999) to 3,839 (Øien, Storrø, Jenssen, & Johnsen, 2008). The studies were carried out in the USA (Cohen et al ., 1991; Lee et al ., 2014; Manne et al ., 2013; McBride et al ., 2004; Robinson, Turrisi, & Stapleton, 2007; Voils et al ., 2013; Wing, Marcus, Epstein, & Jawad, 1991), Australia (Burke, Giangiulio, Gillam, Beilin, & Houghton, 2003; Burke et al ., 1999), the United Kingdom (van Jaarsveld, Miles, Edwards, & Wardle, 2006), Israel (Benyamini, Ashery, & Shiloh, 2011), South Korea (Park, Song, Hur, & Kim, 2009), Germany (Gellert, Ziegelmann, Warner, & Schwarzer, 2011), and Norway (Øien et al ., 2008). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, an intervention comparing a lecture on BSE alone versus a lecture plus the opportunity to be videotaped carrying out BSE and receive feedback on performance (both couple‐focused) demonstrated no group differences in performance of BSE, or knowledge about BSE and breast cancer (Park et al ., 2009). However, participants in a couple‐focused skin self‐examination programme (10 min training in skin self‐examination plus skills training) were significantly more likely to check their skin 4 months post‐intervention (64.6% vs. 30.8%; p < .001), and had significantly greater self‐efficacy for skin self‐examination than those taught the same techniques alone (Robinson et al ., 2007). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Health behaviour change interventions for couples: A systematic review

Arden‐Close

McGrath

2017

British J Health Psychol

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesPartners are a significant influence on individuals’ health, and concordance in health behaviours increases over time in couples. Several theories suggest that couple‐focused interventions for health behaviour change may therefore be more effective than individual interventions.DesignA systematic review of health behaviour change interventions for couples was conducted.MethodsSystematic search methods identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non‐randomized interventions of health behaviour change for couples with at least one member at risk of a chronic physical illness, published from 1990–2014.ResultsWe identified 14 studies, targeting the following health behaviours: cancer prevention (6), obesity (1), diet (2), smoking in pregnancy (2), physical activity (1) and multiple health behaviours (2). In four out of seven trials couple‐focused interventions were more effective than usual care. Of four RCTs comparing a couple‐focused intervention to an individual intervention, two found that the couple‐focused intervention was more effective.ConclusionsThe studies were heterogeneous, and included participants at risk of a variety of illnesses. In many cases the intervention was compared to usual care for an individual or an individual‐focused intervention, which meant the impact of the couplebased content could not be isolated. Three arm studies could determine whether any added benefits of couple‐focused interventions are due to adding the partner or specific content of couple‐focused interventions. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Health behaviours and health behaviour change are more often concordant across couples than between individuals in the general population.Couple‐focused interventions for chronic conditions are more effective than individual interventions or usual care (Martire, Schulz, Helgeson, Small, & Saghafi, 2010). What does this study add? Identified studies targeted a variety of health behaviours, with few studies in any one area.Further assessment of the effectiveness of couple‐focused versus individual interventions for those at risk is needed.Three‐arm study designs are needed to determine benefits of targeting couples versus couple‐focused intervention content.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health behaviour change interventions for couples: A systematic review

Arden‐Close

McGrath

2017

British J Health Psychol

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent work 14,17 has shown that partner involvement in a SSE skills training intervention can be an important influence in SSE self-efficacy and the adoption of SSE behaviors in patients with melanoma. The current study describes relationship and partnerrelated dynamics that influenced the amount of patients' SSE self-efficacy gained from the intervention.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These studies by Robinson et al 14,17 suggest that using partners and focusing on increasing SSE self-efficacy can be effective ways for clinicians to increase screening behaviors in patients with melanoma. However, these previous studies do not speak to how patient and partner relationship variables may influence the effectiveness of the SSE intervention.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Support for this hypothesis was found in our subsequent work 17 that revealed SSE self-efficacy beliefs were the strongest mediator of the learning condition (eg, couple vs solo) for the SSE behavior (Fig 1). Thus, the differences in SSE outcomes between patients in the couple and solo learning conditions could be explained by changes in patient self-efficacy with the greatest positive changes occurring in the couple learning group.These studies by Robinson et al 14,17 suggest that using partners and focusing on increasing SSE self-efficacy can be effective ways for clinicians to increase screening behaviors in patients with melanoma. However, these previous studies do not speak to how patient and partner relationship variables may influence the effectiveness of the SSE intervention.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Relationship and partner moderator variables increase self-efficacy of performing skin self-examination

Robinson

Stapleton

Turrisi

2008

Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective-We sought to identify relationship and partner-related moderating variables that influence the effectiveness of both a couples and a solo learning intervention designed to increase skin self-examination behavior in a sample of patients at risk for developing melanoma.Methods-Patients received a brief intervention designed to teach skin self-examination skills and were randomly assigned into either a solo learning condition where the intervention was administered to the patient alone (n = 65) or a couple learning condition where the intervention was administered to the patient and patient's spouse or cohabiting partner (n = 65). The main outcome measure was skin self-examination self-efficacy, which is the strongest mediator of skin self-examination. The relationship moderator variables measured were quality of relationship, partner motivation, and ability to assist in implementation of the intervention.Results-When quality of the marital/partner relationship was high, the beneficial effects provided by the partner being included in the skin self-examination skills training were the highest and patients exhibited higher self-efficacy. Similar effects were observed for those with partners who were motivated to implement the intervention, and for those with partners high in ability to provide support.Limitations-Study limitations include the need to evaluate whether the effects can be sustained long term and the exclusion of patients with melanoma without partners.Conclusions-The amount of beneficial effects gained by the patient from the skin selfexamination intervention was influenced by marital/partner relationships. Clinicians may need to consider these relationship and partner characteristics when communicating to patients about skin cancer screening.With an estimated 60,000 new cases of invasive melanoma and 8100 deaths in 2007, the incidence of melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, has increased more rapidly than any other cancer in the past 10 years. 1 Early detection techniques, such as skin self-examination (SSE) and the use of the ABCDE rule of melanoma identification, 2 have been identified as effective prevention tools to reduce the mortality of melanoma. 3 However, few studies exist that report on the efficacy of efforts designed to increase SSE. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] early detection in successful treatment of melanoma, this lack of empirical SSE studies suggests that more work is needed to understand these behaviors.SSE is unlike other self-screening cancer techniques, such as breast or testicular selfexamination, because complete SSE often requires assistance from others (eg, significant others, friends, family members) to examine areas of the skin that are not easily seen. Given this reliance on helpers for effective SSE performance, there is a need to study the role of the helper in the adaptation and maintenance of SSE behaviors. In an attempt to elucidate the role of the partner, Robinson et al 14 recently examined the efficacy of a SSE skill training inter...

show abstract