# The Illness Perceptions and Coping Experiences of Patients with Colorectal Cancer and Their Spousal Caregivers: A Qualitative Study

## TL;DR

This study explores how colorectal cancer patients and their spouses perceive the illness and cope with it, offering insights for better psychological support.

## Contribution

The study introduces a new framework for understanding illness perception incongruence and dyadic coping strategies in couples dealing with colorectal cancer.

## Key findings

- Two main themes were identified: individualized illness perception and IP sharing and restructuring.
- Couples use three coping approaches to manage illness perception incongruence.
- A preliminary framework was developed to guide couple-based interventions for better psychological adjustment.

## Abstract

(1) Background: Illness perception (IP) is an important psychological construct for couples dealing with cancer, which impacts health outcomes and the psychological adjustment to cancer. More research is needed to explore the traits of IP and the efforts of couples coping with cancer. Thus, this study was designed to explore the coping experiences and features of the IPs of couples dealing with cancer. (2) Methods: A total of 24 patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and 20 spousal caregivers (SCs) participated in semi-structured interviews. All interviews were recorded digitally, transcribed, and analyzed by using an inductive thematic analysis. (3) Results: Two themes (individualized and predominant IP; IP sharing and restructuring) were developed. A preliminary framework was formulated to illustrate the relations among subthemes and the relations between themes with an adjustment of a positive IP to CRC. In this framework, based on multiple sources and factors, the natural disparities formed the IPs of the partners of couples and determined the incongruence of IPs. The effects of IP incongruence on lives under the disease guided the three directions of coping approaches (i.e., information and available support, appropriate disclosure and reflection, and leaving the CRC diagnosis behind) which were adopted by couples dealing with CRC to share and restructure the IP with their spouses for effective dyadic coping. (4) Conclusions: This study provides insights to healthcare providers into the experiences of couples dealing with CRC and the development of couple-based IP intervention programs: (a) it initially provides adequate factual knowledge for enhancing beliefs in the ability to control illness, (b) encourages illness-centered conversations and disclosure regarding thoughts and emotions for promoting positive congruence of IP between the partners of couples dealing with a hard dilemma, and (c) guides couples to perceive positive changes and explore the illness’s meaning. Understanding each theme of personalized IP and adopting effective IP coping approaches can help guide couples dealing with CRC to efficiently promote constructive IP and better health outcomes.