Background

When patients recover from disease-related functional limitations, support received from partners may not always match patients' changing independence goals. The lines of defense (LoD) model proposes a hierarchy of independence goals (LoDs), ranging from minimising discomfort by disengagement (lowest LoD) to protection of self-reliance (highest LoD). Prostate cancer patients' LoDs were examined as moderators of the association between partner support and patients' and partners' affect during patients' recovery from postsurgical functional limitations.

Methods

Data from 169 couples were assessed four times within 7 months following patients' surgery. Patients reported on post-surgery functional limitations (i.e. incontinence), LoDs, affect, and received partner support. Partners reported on affect and support provided to patients.

Results

In patients endorsing lower LoDs, more received support was associated with less negative affect. Also, not endorsing high LoDs while receiving strong partner support was related to patients' lower negative and higher positive affect. Partners' support provision to patients tended to be associated with increases in partners' negative affect when patients had endorsed higher LoDs and with increases in positive affect when patients had endorsed lower LoDs.

Conclusions

Matching patients' independence goals or LoDs with partners' support may be beneficial for patients' and partners' affect.

The current article details a position statement and recommendations for future research and practice on planning and implementation intentions in health contexts endorsed by the Synergy Expert Group. The group comprised world-leading researchers in health and social psychology and behavioural medicine who convened to discuss priority issues in planning interventions in health contexts and develop a set of recommendations for future research and practice. The expert group adopted a nominal groups approach and voting system to elicit and structure priority issues in planning interventions and implementation intentions research. Forty-two priority issues identified in initial discussions were further condensed to 18 key issues, including definitions of planning and implementation intentions and 17 priority research areas. Each issue was subjected to voting for consensus among group members and formed the basis of the position statement and recommendations. Specifically, the expert group endorsed statements and recommendations in the following areas: generic definition of planning and specific definition of implementation intentions, recommendations for better testing of mechanisms, guidance on testing the effects of moderators of planning interventions, recommendations on the social aspects of planning interventions, identification of the preconditions that moderate effectiveness of planning interventions and recommendations for research on how people use plans.