Dyadic coping theories posit that spousal involvement may benefit illness management through collaborative and supportive (C&S) strategies and shared illness appraisals. Illness appraisals have only been examined as individual differences rather than fluctuating daily as individuals manage the difficult Type 1 diabetes regimen. The study examined how daily illness appraisals of individuals with Type 1 diabetes and their spouses were linked to spouses' daily C&S strategies and whether C&S strategies were most beneficial for daily diabetes outcomes when they occurred in the context of shared illness appraisals. Couples (N = 199) in which one person had Type 1 diabetes (M age patients = 46.81; 52.3% female; spouses = 46.40, 47.5% female) completed a 14-day diary assessing illness appraisals (ranging from nonshared through shared) and spouses' C&S strategies. Patients reported daily self-regulation failures, self-care behaviors, and perceived coping effectiveness. Daily blood glucose was gathered from glucometers. Multilevel models indicated both within-person and between-person effects of patients' and spouses' illness appraisals on C&S strategies with higher shared illness appraisals associated with greater C&S strategies. Greater shared illness appraisals were associated with fewer self-regulation failures and better self-care. C&S strategies were associated with lower self-care and higher blood glucose levels. Appraisal interacted with C&S strategies such that C&S strategies were associated with more self-regulation failures, lower self-care, and lower perceived coping effectiveness when patients reported lower shared appraisals. Results suggest that C&S strategies may be more detrimental for diabetes management when individuals view diabetes as less shared. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

To examine the influence of daily sleep quality in patients with Type 1 diabetes (T1D) on that of their spouses and to investigate the influence of couples' sleep quality on patients' diabetes-specific stressors and couples' general stressors the following day. 199 patients with Type 1 diabetes (Mage = 46.82) and their spouses (Mage = 46.41) completed a 14-day diary where they reported on their own sleep quality, and the presence of general stressors. Patients reported the presence of diabetes-specific stressors. Multilevel modeling examined the effects of daily variability in (within-person effects) and average levels of (between-person effects) sleep quality on the number of next-day diabetes-specific stressors (controlling for prior day stressors). Furthermore, the actor-partner interdependence model was used to examine the effect of sleep quality on general stressors. Greater patients' daily sleep quality was related to their spouses' greater sleep quality. Increases in the patients' own daily- and average sleep quality were uniquely associated with fewer next day diabetes-specific stressors. Better own daily- and average sleep quality were associated with fewer general stressors for both partners. Spouses' increased daily sleep quality was associated with fewer general stressors of patients. The results support that sleep quality is a dyadic phenomenon among couples and suggest that better sleep quality may buffer diabetes specific and general stress in couples coping with T1D. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the characteristics of posttraumatic growth arising from losing an immediate family member to suicide in Korea. We used interpretative phenomenological analysis for data collection and analysis and conducted in-depth interviews with 11 participants in Korea to evaluate the positive changes subsequent to the suicide. Participants revealed positive outcomes in response to losing an immediate family member to suicide after suffering the “most unimaginable pain” including (a) “Now I know what the most important thing in life is,” (b) “Warm and intimate relationships matter,” and (c) “Survivors of suicide’s search for meaning.” The implications of these findings and avenues for future research are discussed.

We-talk (first-person plural pronoun usage) is frequently used to represent the degree to which a person views an illness as shared within a couple. There is evidence that we-talk is related to good relationship and health. However, research has failed to examine the implications of we-talk for spouses and the interpersonal mechanisms that underlie relational and health benefits. To address these limitations, we investigated the association of we-talk to relationship and health among 199 couples in which one person had type 1 diabetes. We-talk was assessed in the context of a brief coping interview with patients and spouses separately. Patients reported their perceptions of their spouse’s behavior over the past month. Actor–partner interdependence, regression, and bootstrap models showed that patient we-talk was unrelated to patient and spouse well-being, but greater spouse we-talk was associated with higher patient relationship satisfaction, higher patient self-efficacy, and better patient self-care behavior. For spouses, greater spouse we-talk also was associated with higher relationship satisfaction, lower stress, and fewer depressive symptoms. Mediational analyses showed that patients’ perceptions of spouses’ greater emotional support and fewer critical behaviors partially accounted for these associations. Spouse we-talk may be more important than patient we-talk because it signifies that spouses are involved in helping with diabetes management, namely by providing emotional support and refraining from criticizing the patient.