This population-based study investigated gender differences in the use of coping strategies and their relationship to anxiety symptoms during the initial COVID-19 lockdown period in the United States. A national online survey was administered between 13 April 2020 and 8 June 2020. The study sample comprised 1673 respondents (66% women). Overall, 46% reported high levels of anxiety, and women experienced significantly (p < 0.001) higher levels of anxiety than men. Women were significantly (p < 0.05) more likely to use acceptance, self-distraction, positive reframing, and emotional support than men. Significant interactions between gender and coping strategies were also identified. Women engaging in high (+1SD) vs. low (−1SD) levels of active coping were not found to have significantly different anxiety levels. In contrast, men reported higher levels of anxiety when they engaged in high levels of active coping and lower levels of anxiety when they engaged in low levels of active coping (b2 = 0.88, t = 3.33, p = 0.001). Additionally, women engaging in high levels of acceptance and positive reframing reported significantly lower anxiety levels than when engag-ing in low levels of acceptance (b1 = −1.03, t = −4.58, p < 0.001) and positive reframing (b1 = −0.72, t = −3.95, p < 0.001). No significant associations between acceptance and positive reframing levels and anxiety levels were found with men. Overall, these findings extend our understanding of the nature of gender differences in stress responsivity during periods of high psychological distress and can inform the development of mental health interventions to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and future infectious disease outbreaks.

Background: The diagnosis and treatment of cancer is a life-altering experience that signals profound changes in a person’s life. However, most people do not experience cancer in isolation or cope alone. Despite the fact that partners (i.e. spouses, significant others) provide emotional support and play a critical role in caregiving, cancer exacts a heavy toll on them and challenges their relationship with the patient by altering established communication patterns and roles. In recognition of this, a burgeoning literature involving couple-based interventions to improve patient and partner quality of life and adaptation has emerged. However, questions remain regarding how we can improve these interventions to exact greater impact on patient and partner outcomes. Material and methods: A narrative review of the literature on couples’ communication processes in cancer was conducted in order to describe knowledge gaps and directions for future research. Results: Most couple-based interventions have included a communication skills training component because communication is an important process through which couples make sense of cancer, engage in social support, negotiate role changes and coordinate coping responses. However, scholars still know very little about what they should instruct couples to talk about, how often they should talk and when talking (or not talking) is beneficial (and for whom – the patient, partner, or both). Conclusion: In order push this field forward, we need to develop a more nuanced view of couples’ communication that acknowledges that there are multiple ways to talk, different aspects of the cancer experience to talk about, and preexisting communication patterns and preferences for different couples that may influence the utility of talk. Interventions that replace the unilateral and generic prescription to talk openly about cancer with targeted questions that prompt reflection on couples’ unique strengths, preexisting communication patterns and support resources may thus help bolster the impact of couple-based interventions on patient and partner quality of life.

Background: Dyadic psychosocial interventions have been found beneficial both for people coping with mental or physical health conditions as well as their family members and friends who provide them with support. Delivering these interventions via electronic health (eHealth) may help increase their scalability. Objective: This scoping review aimed to provide the first comprehensive overview of dyadic eHealth interventions for individuals of all ages affected by mental or physical illness and their family members or friends who support them. The goal was to understand how dyadic eHealth interventions have been used and to highlight areas of research needed to advance dyadic eHealth intervention development and dissemination. Methods: A comprehensive electronic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO was conducted for articles published in the English language through March 2019. Eligible records described a psychosocial eHealth intervention that intervened with both care recipients and their support person. Results: A total of 7113 records were reviewed of which 101 met eligibility criteria. There were 52 unique dyadic eHealth interventions identified, which were tested across 73 different trials. Of the unique interventions, 33 were conducted among dyads of children and their supporting parent, 1 was conducted with an adolescent-young adult care recipient population, and the remaining 18 were conducted among adult dyads. Interventions targeting pediatric dyads most commonly addressed a mental health condition (n=10); interventions targeting adult dyads most commonly addressed cancer (n=9). More than three-fourths of interventions (n=40) required some human support from research staff or clinicians. Most studies (n=64) specified one or more primary outcomes for care recipients, whereas less than one-fourth (n=22) specified primary outcomes for support persons. Where specified, primary outcomes were most commonly self-reported psychosocial or health factors for both care recipients (n=43) and support persons (n=18). Results of the dyadic eHealth intervention tended to be positive for care recipients, but evidence of effects for support persons was limited because of few studies specifying primary outcomes for supporters. Trials of dyadic eHealth interventions were most commonly randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n=44), and RCTs most commonly compared the dyadic eHealth intervention to usual care alone (n=22). Conclusions: This first comprehensive review of dyadic eHealth interventions demonstrates that there is substantial, diverse, and growing literature supporting this interventional approach. However, several significant gaps were identified. Few studies were designed to evaluate the unique effects of dyadic interventions relative to individual interventions. There was also limited assessment and reporting of outcomes for support persons, and there were no interventions meeting our eligibility criteria specifically targeting the needs of older adult dyads. Findings highlight areas of research opportunities for developing dyadic eHealth interventions for novel populations and for increasing access to dyadic care.

This study examined individual-level determinants of self-reported changes in healthy (diet and physical activity) and addictive (alcohol use, smoking, and vaping) lifestyle behaviors during the initial COVID-19 lockdown period in the USA. A national online survey was administered between May and June 2020 that targeted a representative U.S. sample and yielded data from 1276 respondents, including 58% male and 50% racial/ethnic minorities. We used univariate and multivariable linear regression models to examine the associations of sociodemographic, mental health, and behavioral determinants with self-reported changes in lifestyle behaviors. Some study participants reported increases in healthy lifestyle behaviors since the pandemic (i.e., 36% increased healthy eating behaviors, and 33% increased physical activity). However, they also reported increases in addictive lifestyle behaviors including alcohol use (40%), tobacco use (41%), and vaping (46%). With regard to individual-level determinants, individuals who reported adhering to social distancing guidelines were also more likely to report increases in healthy lifestyle behaviors (β = 0.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.21). Conversely, women (β = −0.37, 95% CI −0.62 to −0.12), and unemployed individuals (β = −0.33, 95% CI −0.64 to −0.02) were less likely to report increases in healthy lifestyle behaviors. In addition, individuals reporting anxiety were more likely to report increases in addictive behaviors (β = 0.26, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.43). Taken together, these findings suggest that women and unemployed individuals may benefit from interventions targeting diet and physical activity, and that individuals reporting anxiety may benefit from interventions targeting smoking and alcohol cessation to address lifestyle changes during the pandemic.

Individuals with cancer commonly rely on their informal caregivers (e.g., spouse/partner, family member, close friend) to help them manage the demands of the disease and its treatment. Caregiving, including helping with patient care, performing household chores, and providing emotional and practical support, can be particularly demanding for employed caregivers, who must juggle their work responsibilities while providing care. Although a burgeoning literature describes the toll that balancing these oft-competing demands can exact, few resources exist to support employed cancer caregivers. To address this gap, we conducted a narrative review of the impacts of cancer on employed caregivers. We found that employed caregivers experience significant financial impacts in terms of lost time and income. They also experience a variety of work-related (e.g., reduced productivity, absenteeism) and mental health (e.g., stress, burden) impacts. Going forward, prospective studies are needed to characterize changes in caregiver support needs and preferences at different time points along the cancer care continuum (e.g., at diagnosis, during treatment, end-of-life) so that appropriate workplace accommodations can be provided. More population-based studies are also needed to develop models for identifying caregivers who are at increased risk for poor employment or mental health outcomes so that more targeted support programs can be developed. Ultimately, a multipronged effort on behalf of employers, healthcare, and community-based organizations may be needed to support and empower this vulnerable subgroup.