Dyadic associations between perceived family resilience and fear of disease progression among reproductive-age patients with cervical cancer and their spouses: a cross-sectional study
- 1Shenzhen Hospital (Futian) of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Sixth Clinical Medical College of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine
Abstract
Background: Fear of disease progression (FoP) and perceived family resilience may be interrelated within patient–spouse dyads, but member-specific and cross-partner associations in cervical cancer are insufficiently characterized.
Methods: This cross-sectional dyadic study included 208 reproductive-age patients with cervical cancer and their spouses. FoP was assessed using the Fear of Progression Questionnaire–Short Form (FoP-Q-SF) in patients and its partner version (FoP-Q-SF/P) in spouses; perceived family resilience was assessed using the Chinese version of the Family Resilience Questionnaire (FaRE). Paired comparisons, intraclass correlation analysis, Pearson correlations, and actor–partner interdependence model (APIM) analyses were conducted for distinguishable patient–spouse dyads. APIMs were estimated without and with adjustment for patient and spouse age and education, clinical stage, metastasis/recurrence status, and childbirth history.
Results: Patients reported higher FoP scores than spouses (46.88 ± 9.69 vs. 31.84 ± 4.79; t(207) = 20.71, P < 0.001). A total of 190 patients (91.3%) and 124 spouses (59.6%) scored ≥34; this patient-derived threshold was applied descriptively to spouses. Patient-perceived family resilience was lower than spouse-perceived family resilience (83.13 ± 16.20 vs. 88.22 ± 15.13; t(207) = −3.95, P < 0.001), with an absolute-agreement intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.283 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.156–0.399). In the adjusted APIM, patient-perceived family resilience was negatively associated with patient FoP (β = −0.179, P = 0.001) and spouse FoP (β = −0.544, P < 0.001). Spouse-perceived family resilience was negatively associated with patient FoP (β = −0.176, P = 0.003), whereas its association with spouse FoP was not statistically significant (β = −0.126, P = 0.053).
Conclusions: In the adjusted APIM, higher patient-perceived family resilience was associated with lower FoP in both patients and spouses, and higher spouse-perceived family resilience was associated with lower patient FoP. Further research should evaluate approaches to assessing and managing FoP that include both patients and spouses.
Related
- Associations among perceived negative consequences, perceived deterioration in well-being, fear of progression, and probable depression in Chinese adults with chronic kidney disease: a cross-sectional path analysis.
- Prospective associations between perceived school climate and psychological distress among Chinese adolescents: a three-wave longitudinal study of school belonging, social avoidance, and psychological resilience
- Associations of sleep disturbance and emotion regulation with perceived workplace safety and fatigue among male firefighters with prior occupational accidents : A cross-sectional study
- Associations of empathy, occupational commitment, and ego-resilience with perceived stress among nurses in non-family-accompanied care wards
- Resilience as an indirect pathway linking perceived skill development and institutional support with job satisfaction and burnout among nurses in Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional study
BibTeX
@article{peng2026dyadic,
title = {{Dyadic associations between perceived family resilience and fear of disease progression among reproductive-age patients with cervical cancer and their spouses: a cross-sectional study}},
author = {Mei-Gui Peng and Zi-Yi Yuan and Long-Xian Liu and Shuang Lu and Mei-Xia Ye},
journal = {Frontiers in Oncology},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3389/fonc.2026.1927068},
url = {https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2026.1927068/full},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Dyadic associations between perceived family resilience and fear of disease progression among reproductive-age patients with cervical cancer and their spouses: a cross-sectional study
AU - Mei-Gui Peng
AU - Zi-Yi Yuan
AU - Long-Xian Liu
AU - Shuang Lu
AU - Mei-Xia Ye
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/28
JO - Frontiers in Oncology
DO - 10.3389/fonc.2026.1927068
UR - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2026.1927068/full
AB - Background: Fear of disease progression (FoP) and perceived family resilience may be interrelated within patient–spouse dyads, but member-specific and cross-partner associations in cervical cancer are insufficiently characterized. Methods: This cross-sectional dyadic study included 208 reproductive-age patients with cervical cancer and their spouses. FoP was assessed using the Fear of Progression Questionnaire–Short Form (FoP-Q-SF) in patients and its partner version (FoP-Q-SF/P) in spouses; perceived family resilience was assessed using the Chinese version of the Family Resilience Questionnaire (FaRE). Paired comparisons, intraclass correlation analysis, Pearson correlations, and actor–partner interdependence model (APIM) analyses were conducted for distinguishable patient–spouse dyads. APIMs were estimated without and with adjustment for patient and spouse age and education, clinical stage, metastasis/recurrence status, and childbirth history. Results: Patients reported higher FoP scores than spouses (46.88 ± 9.69 vs. 31.84 ± 4.79; t(207) = 20.71, P < 0.001). A total of 190 patients (91.3%) and 124 spouses (59.6%) scored ≥34; this patient-derived threshold was applied descriptively to spouses. Patient-perceived family resilience was lower than spouse-perceived family resilience (83.13 ± 16.20 vs. 88.22 ± 15.13; t(207) = −3.95, P < 0.001), with an absolute-agreement intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.283 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.156–0.399). In the adjusted APIM, patient-perceived family resilience was negatively associated with patient FoP (β = −0.179, P = 0.001) and spouse FoP (β = −0.544, P < 0.001). Spouse-perceived family resilience was negatively associated with patient FoP (β = −0.176, P = 0.003), whereas its association with spouse FoP was not statistically significant (β = −0.126, P = 0.053). Conclusions: In the adjusted APIM, higher patient-perceived family resilience was associated with lower FoP in both patients and spouses, and higher spouse-perceived family resilience was associated with lower patient FoP. Further research should evaluate approaches to assessing and managing FoP that include both patients and spouses.
SN - 2234-943X
ER -