Relationship intimacy processes during treatment for couple-focused interventions for prostate cancer patients and their spouses.

Abstract

Objective: In a previously published trial, we compared the effect of an intimacy-enhancing therapy (IET) and a General Health and Wellness intervention (GHW) on psychological and relationship outcomes among men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and their partners. Results suggested partial effects of IET on psychological adjustment and relationship satisfaction. To understand these partial effects, the first aim of this study was to evaluate self-disclosure, perceived partner disclosure, perceived partner responsiveness, and levels of intimacy rated after sessions, and the second aim of this study was to examine the role of pre-treatment holding back on these intimacy processes.

Methods: A total of 156 couples who participated in treatment reported on self- and perceived partner disclosure, responsiveness, and intimacy during sessions. Participants rated levels of holding back before treatment. Linear growth models were estimated using multilevel modeling. Each intimacy process variable was predicted to be a function of time, role, condition, and all interactions among these variables. The effects of own and partner pretreatment holding back on average intimacy process and change in intimacy process were tested in moderated growth models.

Results: Self- and perceived partner disclosure were significantly higher during IET sessions than GHW sessions. Self-disclosure, perceived partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness increased in both IET and GHW. Intimacy was not higher and did not increase more in IET compared with GHW. Participants who held back reported that their partner disclosed less to them during sessions, perceived that their partner was less responsive to them during sessions, and reported less intimacy during sessions. Partners of participants who held back were seen as less responsive and their interactions were seen as less intimate.

Conclusions: Although IET focused on enhancing couples' responsiveness and intimacy, it did not have a stronger effect on these processes during sessions than GHW. The lack of an effect may, in part, be because of the fact that IET did not help those couples who may have been in the greatest need for it because they held back more.