Intimate Relationships and Stroke

[Full title: Intimate Relationships and Stroke: Piloting a Dyadic Intervention to Improve Depression]

Citation: Terrill, A.L.; Reblin, M.; MacKenzie, J.J.; Baucom, B.R.W.; Einerson, J.; Cardell, B.; Richards, L.G.; Majersik, J.J. Intimate Relationships and Stroke: Piloting a Dyadic Intervention to Improve Depression Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 1804. https:// doi.org/10.3390/ijerph 19031804 Academic Editor: Paul B Tchounwou Received: 24 December 2021 Accepted: 2 February 2022 Published: 5 February 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations Copyright: © 2022 by the authors Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/) International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Article Intimate Relationships and Stroke: Piloting a Dyadic Intervention to Improve Depression Alexandra L. Terrill 1, * , Maija Reblin 2 , Justin J. MacKenzie 3 , Brian R. W. Baucom 4 , Jackie Einerson 1 , Beth Cardell 1 , Lorie G. Richards 1 and Jennifer J. Majersik 5 1 Department of Occupational & Recreational Therapies, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA; jackie.einerson@hsc.utah.edu (J.E.); beth.cardell@hsc.utah.edu (B.C.); lorie.richards@hsc.utah.edu (L.G.R.) 2 Department of Family Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA; maija.reblin@med.uvm.edu 3 Division of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84132, USA; Justin.mackenzie@hsc.utah.edu 4 Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA; brian.Baucom@utah.edu 5 Department of Neurology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84132, USA; jennifer.majersik@hsc.utah.edu * Correspondence: alex.terrill@hsc.utah.edu; Tel.: +01-801-581-5951 Abstract: Stroke affects not only the survivor but also their romantic partner. Post-stroke depression is common in both partners and can have significant negative consequences, yet few effective interventions are available. The purpose of this study was to pilot test a novel 8-week remotely administered dyadic intervention (ReStoreD) designed to help couples better cope with stroke-related changes and reduce depressive symptoms. Thirty-four cohabitating survivor–partner dyads at least 3 months post-stroke and reporting some changes in mood were enrolled. Depressive symptoms were assessed preand post-intervention and at 3-month follow-up. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to assess the effects of ReStoreD over time on depressive symptoms in stroke survivors and their partners. Twenty-six dyads completed the study. Although statistical significance was not reached, there was a large effect size for improvements in depressive symptoms for stroke survivors. There was no significant improvement for partners, and the effect size was minimal Those with more significant depressive symptoms at baseline were more likely to benefit from the intervention. This pilot study established proof-of-concept by demonstrating that depressive symptoms can be lessened in stroke survivors and partners with more severe depressive symptoms. Future research will establish the efficacy of the intervention in a fully powered study Keywords: stroke; post-stroke depression; depression; caregiver; dyadic intervention; positive psychology 1. Introduction One-third of persons with stroke experience post-stroke depression (PSD), characterized by low mood, decreased energy, inability to feel pleasure in normally pleasurable activities (anhedonia), fatigue, and changes in appetite, concentration, and sleep [ 1 ]. The etiology of PSD is not well understood [ 2 ], though it is likely a combination of the physical and neurocognitive effects of the stroke itself, in addition to the psychological and social effects of a chronic medical condition. PSD is associated with significant negative consequences and outcomes, including increased disability and mortality, decreased participation, and poorer quality of life [ 3 – 6 ]. Depression also occurs in up to 60% of stroke care partners [ 7 ]. Care partners, often a spouse/partner [ 8 ], provide emotional support to the person with stroke and help with symptom management and/or other care tasks. Care partner depression can contribute to social isolation and declines in their own personal health [ 9 ], as well as interfere with rehabilitation and increase the likelihood of re-hospitalization of the person with stroke [ 10 ]. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 1804. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph 19031804 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 1804 2 of 12 Research has shown that well-being is interdependent in couples, meaning that if one partner is depressed, the other is more likely to also be depressed [ 11 , 12 ]. As such, fostering well-being in both partners is important for optimizing shortand long-term health outcomes for both persons with stroke and their care partners. Despite the high prevalence and significant consequences of mental health issues post-stroke, treatment available to persons with stroke and care partners is often inadequate [ 1 ]. To address the mental health needs of both persons with stroke and their care partners, it may be beneficial to use a couples-based (dyadic) treatment approach [ 13 , 14 ], in which both partners in the dyad are active participants in the intervention. Prior dyadic interventions primarily targeted the individual with stroke and are insufficient to meet the needs of the couple as a whole. To meet these needs, we developed an 8-week dyadic positive psychology-based intervention (PPI), called ReStoreD (Resilience after Stroke in Dyads) [ 15 ]. Interventions based in positive psychology offer a re-orientation to supplement the traditional “fix-what’s-wrong” approach and seek to build on individuals’ strengths, resources, values, and hopes to increase overall well-being [ 16 ]. As such, PPIs are ideally suited for populations with chronic medical conditions and/or disability, as they emphasize existing and preserved strengths and assets within the context of severe and sometimes permanent changes in function and independence [ 17 ]. Though we are among the first to apply PPIs to a stroke population, they have been effectively applied to other medical populations [ 18 – 20 ] and have been shown to significantly increase well-being and decrease depressive symptoms [ 16 , 21 , 22 ] with long-lasting effects [ 23 ]. Though typically delivered at the individual level, PPIs delivered to a dyad have the potential to not only improve depressive symptoms in the individual but also have a synergistic effect between the care partner and the person with stroke The purpose of this study was to pilot test ReStoreD in couples coping with stroke to determine preliminary effects on depressive symptoms. We hypothesized that participating in the intervention would significantly improve depressive symptoms in both persons with stroke and care partners, and that improvements would be maintained at the 3-month follow-up. Further, the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model (APIM [ 24 ]) was used to explore potential reciprocal effects of depressive symptoms between dyad members 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Design The pilot study used a randomized waitlist-controlled design to test the effects of ReStoreD on reducing depressive symptoms in couples coping with stroke. See Figure 1 for enrollment data. Block randomization was used to assign 60% of the dyads to immediately receive the intervention and 40% to the waitlist condition. However, due to issues with attrition (unrelated to the intervention and documented in Figure 1 ) in the waitlist group, and because no significant baseline differences were found between groups, analysis of the entire sample was conducted using a single-arm repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) of preand post-intervention and 3-month follow-up assessments. The study was pre-registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT#03335358). The data that support the findings of this study are available to additional investigators from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 1804 3 of 12 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 12 Figure 1. CONSORT diagram . 2.2. Participants Consistent with recommendations for pilot study sample sizes [25], the target sample size for the planned analysis was 24 dyads; a target total sample size of 34 dyads was planned to account for attrition. This sample size was expected to be sufficient to demonstrate proof-of-concept as long as changes were in the expected direction. Participant dyads consisted of one partner who had a stroke at least 3 months prior to enrolling in the study and a partner or spouse. Participants were recruited through referrals from University of Utah-affiliated outpatient rehabilitation and neurology clinics and in-person at community-based events. Dyads meeting the following criteria were eligible: (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) living together for at least 6 months; (3) community-dwelling; and (4) either one or both partner(s) had to report changes in mood (depressed mood and/or anhedonia) since the stroke as assessed by self-report on the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire [26]. A clinical diagnosis of depression was not required. Dyads were excluded if: (1) they were unable to understand printed English instructions, (2) either partner did not want to participate, (3) the care partner had a history of stroke or other major neurologic Figure 1. CONSORT diagram 2.2. Participants Consistent with recommendations for pilot study sample sizes [ 25 ], the target sample size for the planned analysis was 24 dyads; a target total sample size of 34 dyads was planned to account for attrition. This sample size was expected to be sufficient to demonstrate proof-of-concept as long as changes were in the expected direction. Participant dyads consisted of one partner who had a stroke at least 3 months prior to enrolling in the study and a partner or spouse. Participants were recruited through referrals from University of Utah-affiliated outpatient rehabilitation and neurology clinics and in-person at communitybased events. Dyads meeting the following criteria were eligible: (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) living together for at least 6 months; (3) community-dwelling; and (4) either one or both partner(s) had to report changes in mood (depressed mood and/or anhedonia) since the stroke as assessed by self-report on the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire [ 26 ]. A clinical diagnosis of depression was not required. Dyads were excluded if: (1) they were unable to understand printed English instructions, (2) either partner did not want to participate, (3) the care partner had a history of stroke or other major neurologic condition, and/or (4) the person with stroke had significant cognitive impairment or aphasia that would

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 1804 4 of 12 interfere with meaningful participation in the intervention. Although individuals with severe cognitive impairment and/or aphasia were excluded, those with mild–moderate cognitive impairment (assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) [ 27 ] or the Cognitive Assessment for Stroke Patients (CASP) [ 28 ]) and/or expressive aphasia were included in the study to increase generalizability to a stroke population [ 29 , 30 ]. The University of Utah Institutional Review Board approved all study procedures prior to recruitment and data collection. All participants provided their own written informed consent 2.3. Procedures All participants completed self-report assessments pre- (T 1), immediate post- (T 2), and 3 months post-intervention (T 3) in person at a University of Utah-affiliated clinic. Two trained research assistants administered assessments at each session. All data were entered and maintained in REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture tools [ 31 ]), a highly secure, web-based application designed to support data capture. An investigator who did not conduct assessments conducted statistical analysis Intervention Dyads received a manualized 20-min training from trained staff on how to complete the 8-week self-administered intervention at the end of the T 1 visit. Each participant received their own activity booklet containing instructions and a tracking calendar to log weekly activities at home. Participants could choose from a variety of activities (see Table 1 ) each week and were asked to complete at least two individual activities and two couples’ activities for at least 15 min each (total time = 1 h per week). Specific activities in the ReStoreD intervention were selected based on empirically supported evidence for efficacy in improving depressive symptoms and/or increasing well-being [ 21 , 22 ]. Research assistants completed protocolized weekly check-in phone calls to remind participants to complete their activities and answer any questions. Protocol fidelity was assessed throughout the study Table 1. ReStoreD activities, descriptions, and examples Activities Descriptions Examples * Gratitude Be grateful for life circumstances and persons Write a thank you note to the therapist Acts of kindness Perform good deeds for others Drop off a meal for a neighbor who recently had a baby Relationships Strengthen relationships, make time for people and be supportive Have a family game night without electronic “gadgets” Positive focus Replay positive experiences Tell the partner about progress made during therapy Savoring Replay life’s momentary pleasures, relish ordinary experiences Watch the sunset together Goals Identify a meaningful goal and devote time to pursuing it Cook more often/eat out less Finding meaning Seek meaning and purpose, find the sacred in ordinary life Sharing life goals with the partner * All examples were provided by participants in this study 2.4. Measures Basic demographic and stroke-related information was collected at enrollment. The primary outcome was assessed at each time point using the PROMIS ® (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) Depression Short Form v.8 b (PROMIS-D-SF), which is an 8-item psychometrically sound self-report instrument that has been developed and validated for use with the general population and with individuals living with chronic conditions such as stroke [ 32 ], and it is responsive to change [ 33 ]. Participants rated items

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 1804 5 of 12 such as “In the past 7 days, I felt depressed” on a 5-point scale, with 1 = never and 5 = always. Scores range from 8 to 40 points, with higher scores indicating more severe depressive symptoms. Raw scores were used in our analyses 2.5. Statistical Analysis All dyads were included as part of a single analysis. Repeated measures ANOVA using three time points (T 1, T 2, and T 3) and partner status (person with stroke vs. care partner) was used to examine effects on depressive symptoms over time and to provide preliminary effect sizes. Exploratory post hoc analyses were conducted to identify subgroups who are most likely to benefit from the intervention (younger vs. older couples coping with stroke (based on young stroke definition of 55 years old or younger [ 34 ]), men vs. women, and affected cerebral hemisphere). Additional sensitivity analyses for these effects were tested using multilevel modeling (MLM). MLM is a recommended method for conducting intent-to-treat analyses using all available data. The magnitude, direction, and significance level of the results of MLMs were highly similar to those produced by ANOVAs [ 35 ]. Finally, an Actor–Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) was used to estimate the association between dyad members’ scores at each time point (interdependence effects) The model examines direct and indirect effects for how each partner’s T 1 PROMIS-D-SF score predicts their own (actor effects) as well as their partner’s (partner effects) T 2 and T 3 scores. These models were estimated using a Bayesian structural equation model; this produces stable and unbiased parameter estimates with sample sizes n = 30 or larger [ 36 ]. 3. Results 3.1. Participant Descriptive Data Study participants consisted of 34 cohabitating partner dyads ( n = 68). Both partners with stroke and care partners had a mean age of 53 years, but fewer partners with stroke were female (41%) than care partners (59%). The mean length of relationship was 25 years, and 91% were married. See Table 2 for additional participant characteristics. Other than gender, basic demographic information for persons with stroke and care partners was similar at baseline. A range of stroke types and locations were represented among participants with stroke. Consistent with inclusion criteria, cognition screening scores of individuals with stroke were indicative of a range of impairment, from none to moderate A range of physical function was also represented, as indicated by scores on the Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) scale administered pre-intervention (range of 9–24; mean = 18.83, SD = 4.44) At enrollment, individuals with stroke had an average PROMIS-D-SF score of 17.09 (SD = 6.93), and care partners had an average score of 14.12 (SD = 5.53; t(64) = 1.92, p = 0.06) Subgroup analyses show that care partners who were 55 years old or younger had nonsignificantly higher baseline PROMIS-D-SF scores (M = 15.65, SD = 6.33) compared to those over 55 years old (M = 12.50, SD = 4.13; t(31) = 1.68, p = 0.10). Similarly, there was no significant difference in baseline PROMIS-D-SF scores in persons with stroke 55 years old or younger (M = 18.06, SD = 7.57) compared to those over 55 (M = 16.18, SD = 6.37) Among persons with stroke, those with right hemisphere involvement reported higher PROMIS-D-SF scores (M = 18.10, SD = 5.59) as compared to those with left hemisphere (M = 17.35, SD = 7.80) or other (M = 14.67, SD = 6.93) involvement, though these differences were not statistically significant (F(2, 30) = 0.47, p = 0.63). There was no relationship between time since stroke and PROMIS-D-SF scores at baseline for persons with stroke (r = − 0.10, p = 0.58) or care partners (r = 0.01, p = 0.94).

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 1804 6 of 12 Table 2. Participant characteristics at enrollment Individual Characteristics Partners with Stroke ( n = 34) Care Partners ( n = 34) Female, n (%) 14 (41.17) 20 (58.82) Age, mean years (SD) 53.37 (16.14) 52.97 (14.38) Married, n (%) 62 (91.2) Length of relationship, mean years (SD) 24.89 (17.79) Education/Employment >12 years of education, n (%) 26 (76.47) 27 (79.41) Fullor part-time work, n (%) 3 (8.82) 19 (55.88) Non-paid work (e.g., homemaker), n (%) 6 (17.65) 2 (5.88) Retired, n (%) 16 (47.06) 11 (32.35) Unemployed, n (%) 8 (23.53) 1 (2.94) Race/Ethnicity White, n (%) 31 (91.18) 31 (91.18) Asian, n (%) 1 (2.94) – Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, n (%) – 1 (2.94) Preferred not to answer/missing, n (%) 2 (5.88) 2 (5.88) Depressive Symptoms PROMIS-D-SF, mean raw score (SD) 17.09 (6.93) a 14.12 (5.53) a Female: PROMIS-D-SF, mean raw score (SD) 16.92 (6.65) b 15.65 (6.25) * Male: PROMIS-D-SF, mean raw score (SD) 17.20 (7.27) b 11.77 (3.14) * Taking antidepressants, n (%) 14 (43.8) 7 (21.9) Stroke Characteristics Time since stroke, mean years (SD) 3.45 (4.72) Stroke type: ischemic, n (%) 24 (70.59) Stroke location: Left hemisphere, n (%) 17 (50.00) Right hemisphere, n (%) 11 (32.35) Other (e.g., brainstem, bilateral), n (%) 6 (17.65) Cognitive Screening Score c MoCA, mean score (SD) 16.90 (2.40) CASP ( n = 3), mean score (SD) 32.00 (1.32) Physical Function d Lawton (IADL) Scale, mean score (SD) 18.83 (4.44) * Male vs. female care partner PROMIS-D-SF: t (31) = − 2.36, p = 0.02 a Person with stroke vs. care partner PROMIS-D-SF: t (64) = 1.92, p = 0.06 b Male vs. female person with stroke PROMIS-D-SF: t (31) = 0.11, p = 0.91 c MoCA: administered without visual items; maximum score = 22, below 18/22 is typically used as the cut-off for concern for cognitive challenges; CASP: maximum score = 36, with 30/36 typically used as the cut-off for concern for cognitive challenges. Higher scores indicate better cognitive functioning d Lawton IADL Scale: maximum score = 24; higher scores indicate better function 3.2. Intervention Effects To examine the effects of the intervention on partners with stroke and care partners, two separate one-way repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted to evaluate changes in participants’ PROMIS-D-SF scores at T 1, T 2, and T 3. Interpretations of effect sizes are based on Cohen’s rule-of-thumb for eta-squared ( η 2 ): 0.01 = small; 0.06 = medium; and >0.14 = large effect size [ 37 ]. For the person with stroke, the results indicated a marginally non-significant time effect for improvements in depressive symptoms (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.78, F(2, 23) = 3.23, p = 0.06). Although not statistically significant, this suggests a large intervention effect size ( η 2 = 0.22) on PROMIS-D-SF scores [ 38 ]. For care partners, the results of the analysis indicated no significant time effect (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.99, F(2, 22) = 0.01, p = 0.99); i.e., the effect size did not vary between T 1, T 2, and T 3, and the effect size was minimal ( η 2 = 0.01) Table 3 shows mean PROMIS-D-SF scores and standard deviations for persons with stroke and care partners at T 1, T 2, and T 3. Individuals with stroke on average had a significant decrease in PROMIS-D-SF scores from T 1 to T 2. An exploratory post hoc analysis of those who scored in the 50 th percentile or higher on the PROMIS-D-SF ( ≥ 14 for partners with

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 1804 7 of 12 stroke, ≥ 12 for care partners) at T 1 showed a significant time effect for partners with stroke (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.58, F(2, 11) = 4.07, p < 0.05), with a large effect size ( η 2 = 0.43) [ 37 ]. Time effects for more depressed care partners in this exploratory analysis remained nonsignificant (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.86, F(2, 11) = 0.90, p = 0.43), but with a medium effect size ( η 2 = 0.14) Table 3. Depression scores (PROMIS-D-SF) over time Dyad Member Pre-Intervention (T 1) M (SD) Post-Intervention (T 2) M (SD) Mean Difference (T 1–T 2) 3-Month Follow-Up (T 3) M (SD) Mean Difference (T 2–T 3) Person with stroke All 16.68 (6.91) 14.72 (6.40) 1.96; p < 0.05 15.40 (6.78) − 0.68, p = n/s Score >50 th %ile 22.00 (5.40) 18.31 (7.03) 3.69, p < 0.05 19.38 (6.71) − 1.08, p = n/s Care partner All 14.50 (5.78) 14.54 (6.65) − 0.04, p = n/s 14.41 (6.23) 0.13, p = n/s Score >50 th %ile 18.54 (4.93) 17.23 (7.21) 1.31, p = n/s 17.08 (6.90) 0.15, p = n/s Note: M = mean; SD = standard deviation; n/s= not significant, p > 0.05 3.3. APIM Analysis An APIM was estimated using Bayesian structural equation modeling to explore the relationship between the scores of members of a dyad at each time point. Figure 2 provides a simplified path model, and Table 4 shows all direct, specific indirect, and total effects. The results show significant actor effects for the individual with stroke in that their PROMIS-D-SF score at T 1 significantly predicted their own PROMIS-D-SF score at T 2 but not T 3. The care partner’s PROMIS-D-SF score at T 1 significantly predicted their own PROMIS-D-SF score at T 2, and T 3 was significantly predicted by their scores at T 1 and T 2 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 12 Figure 2. Simplified APIM path model . Table 4. Direct, specific indirect, and total effects for APIM analysis Path B (SD) [95% CI] T 1 Stroke  T 2 Stroke 0.81 (0.15) * [0.51–1.10] T 1 Partner  T 2 Stroke − 0.23 (0.16) [ − 0.55–0.16] T 1 Partner  T 2 Partner 0.77 (0.22) * [0.23–1.17] T 1 Stroke  T 2 Partner − 0.06 (0.17) [ − 0.47–0.23] T 2 Partner  T 3 Stroke 0.04 (0.24) [ − 0.54–0.47] T 2 Stroke  T 3 Stroke 0.44 (0.35) [ − 0.37–1.08] T 2 Partner  T 3 Partner 0.47 (0.15) * [0.19–0.75] T 2 Stroke  T 3 Partner 0.07 (0.22) [ − 0.34–0.49] Total Actor Effects: T 1 Stroke  T 3 Stroke 0.54 (0.23) *** [0.04–0.95] Direct Effect: T 1 Stroke  T 3 Stroke 0.16 (0.34) [ − 0.50–0.84] Indirect Effects Total 0.36 (0.28) [ − 0.23–0.93] T 1 Stroke  T 2 Partner  T 3 Stroke 0.01 (0.04) [ − 0.10–0.10] T 1 Stroke  T 2 Stroke  T 3 Stroke 0.37 (0.29) [ − 0.25–0.94] Total Actor Effects: T 1 Partner  T 3 Partner 0.85 (0.18) * [0.48–1.17] Direct Effect: T 1 Partner  T 3 Partner 0.52 (0.18) ** [0.15–0.83] Indirect Effects Total 0.32 (0.17) *** [0.04–0.67] T 1 Partner  T 2 Partner  T 3 Partner 0.33 (0.15) [0.09–0.65] T 1 Partner  T 2 Stroke  T 3 Partner − 0.01 (0.06) [ − 0.17–0.10] Total Partner Effects: T 1 Stroke  T 3 Partner − 0.33 (0.13) ** [ − 0.63– − 0.13] Direct Effect: T 1 Stroke  T 3 Partner − 0.37 (0.21) a [ − 0.81–0.01] Indirect Effects Total 0.03 (0.19) [ − 0.37–0.44] T 1 Stroke  T 2 Partner  T 3 Partner − 0.3 (0.08) [ − 0.24–0.10] T 1 Stroke  T 2 Stroke  T 3 Partner 0.06 (0.18) [ − 0.29–0.39] Total Partner Effects: T 1 Partner  T 3 Stroke 0.18 (0.28) [ − 0.40–0.72] Direct Effect: T 1 Partner  T 3 Stroke 0.27 (0.34) [ − 0.47–0.98] Indirect Effects Total − 0.07 (0.23) [ − 0.66–0.31] Figure 2. Simplified APIM path model.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 1804 8 of 12 Table 4. Direct, specific indirect, and total effects for APIM analysis Path B (SD) [95% CI] T 1 Stroke → T 2 Stroke 0.81 (0.15) * [0.51–1.10] T 1 Partner → T 2 Stroke − 0.23 (0.16) [ − 0.55–0.16] T 1 Partner → T 2 Partner 0.77 (0.22) * [0.23–1.17] T 1 Stroke → T 2 Partner − 0.06 (0.17) [ − 0.47–0.23] T 2 Partner → T 3 Stroke 0.04 (0.24) [ − 0.54–0.47] T 2 Stroke → T 3 Stroke 0.44 (0.35) [ − 0.37–1.08] T 2 Partner → T 3 Partner 0.47 (0.15) * [0.19–0.75] T 2 Stroke → T 3 Partner 0.07 (0.22) [ − 0.34–0.49] Total Actor Effects: T 1 Stroke → T 3 Stroke 0.54 (0.23) *** [0.04–0.95] Direct Effect: T 1 Stroke → T 3 Stroke 0.16 (0.34) [ − 0.50–0.84] Indirect Effects Total 0.36 (0.28) [ − 0.23–0.93] T 1 Stroke → T 2 Partner → T 3 Stroke 0.01 (0.04) [ − 0.10–0.10] T 1 Stroke → T 2 Stroke → T 3 Stroke 0.37 (0.29) [ − 0.25–0.94] Total Actor Effects: T 1 Partner → T 3 Partner 0.85 (0.18) * [0.48–1.17] Direct Effect: T 1 Partner → T 3 Partner 0.52 (0.18) ** [0.15–0.83] Indirect Effects Total 0.32 (0.17) *** [0.04–0.67] T 1 Partner → T 2 Partner → T 3 Partner 0.33 (0.15) [0.09–0.65] T 1 Partner → T 2 Stroke → T 3 Partner − 0.01 (0.06) [ − 0.17–0.10] Total Partner Effects: T 1 Stroke → T 3 Partner − 0.33 (0.13) ** [ − 0.63– − 0.13] Direct Effect: T 1 Stroke → T 3 Partner − 0.37 (0.21) a [ − 0.81–0.01] Indirect Effects Total 0.03 (0.19) [ − 0.37–0.44] T 1 Stroke → T 2 Partner → T 3 Partner − 0.3 (0.08) [ − 0.24–0.10] T 1 Stroke → T 2 Stroke → T 3 Partner 0.06 (0.18) [ − 0.29–0.39] Total Partner Effects: T 1 Partner → T 3 Stroke 0.18 (0.28) [ − 0.40–0.72] Direct Effect: T 1 Partner → T 3 Stroke 0.27 (0.34) [ − 0.47–0.98] Indirect Effects Total − 0.07 (0.23) [ − 0.66–0.31] T 1 Partner → T 2 Partner → T 3 Stroke 0.03 (0.19) [ − 0.41–0.36] T 1 Partner → T 2 Stroke → T 3 Stroke − 0.08 (0.13) [ − 0.44–0.11] Note: T 1 = pre-intervention; T 2 = post-intervention; T 3 = 3-month follow-up. * p < 0.001; ** p < 0.005; *** p < 0.01; a p < 0.05 There were no significant partner effects, i.e., neither partner’s PROMIS-D-SF scores were significantly associated with the other partner’s scores. However, there was near significance ( p < 0.06) for PROMIS-D-SF scores of the individual with stroke at T 1 predicting PROMIS-D-SF scores of the care partner at T 3, with higher scores for individuals with stroke at T 1 predicting lower care partner scores at T 3. The indirect pathways through T 2 scores were not significant 4. Discussion Depression is common in both persons who had a stroke and their care partners A growing body of evidence supports a biopsychosocial model for both etiology and treatment approaches [ 12 – 14 , 39 ], and recent recommendations highlight the need for interventions supporting the psychosocial needs of stroke survivor–care partner dyads [ 12 – 14 ] This study tested the effects of a novel dyadic positive psychology intervention, ReStoreD, on depressive symptoms in persons with stroke and their care partners. Our findings suggest that ReStoreD may reduce depressive symptoms in persons with stroke, though not care partners. Although our hypothesis that depressive symptoms would be reduced in the person with stroke and their care partner was not supported, our results align with other findings that dyadic interventions most often benefit persons with disability rather than their care partners [ 13 , 14 ]. Future work can determine how best to support both members of the dyad As a pilot study, we may have lacked sufficient power to detect changes in care partner depression scores. Additionally, although some variability existed in care partner depression scores, most were not depressed, and thus, there may have been a floor effect. Care partners may have joined the intervention to support their partner rather than help

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 1804 9 of 12 their own mild depression, thus taking on the responsibility of encouraging the individual with stroke, rather than focusing on their own needs. Additional evidence for a floor effect comes from our exploratory analyses showing that those participants who had more severe depressive symptoms received the most benefit in our study. There could also be referral bias, with clinicians more likely to suggest ReStoreD enrollment to dyads in which the patient was depressed; often, clinicians are less aware of care partner health status or needs [ 40 , 41 ]. There also may have been changes in psychosocial factors not captured by our measures, such as relationship satisfaction, self-efficacy, or social support network While care partners may not have directly benefited from intervention activities, our APIM analyses showed a possible negative relationship between depressive symptoms in the person with stroke pre-intervention and the care partner’s depressive symptoms at the 3-month follow-up. This suggests that more depressive symptoms in the partner with stroke at the start of the intervention predicted fewer depressive symptoms in the care partner 3 months after ending the intervention. One potential interpretation of this finding is that care partners may have felt that they were doing something to support their partner who was struggling with post-stroke depressive symptoms, which may have helped them with their own depressive symptoms by the end of the study. Previous work has shown that resilience and self-efficacy are positively associated with stroke care partner quality of life [ 42 ]. Another possibility is that those individuals with stroke who had the highest pre-intervention depression scores improved the most with the intervention, and this improvement may be driving improvement in the depressive symptoms of the care partner at follow-up. Based on participant feedback from the study, it is also possible that care partners may have felt validated through the intervention process and gained a better understanding of post-stroke changes, improving their own mood Study Limitations and Future Directions The primary limitation of our study was the attrition from our waitlist control group, leading to our small sample size. The pilot study was not powered for small-to-medium effects sizes, but it serves to demonstrate proof-of-concept. Additionally, while at least one dyad member was required to report depressive symptoms for study inclusion, the relatively low levels of depression, particularly among care partners, may have limited the ability of the intervention to show a benefit. Finally, this study only included individuals who were interested in participating. Individuals who self-select into these types of studies are likely different (perhaps less depressed and more motivated) from those who do not. Future iterations may specifically target those individuals with more severe depressive symptoms. We may also impose additional structure to enhance both partners’ ability to engage in intervention activities to lighten the responsibility of the care partner to organize, plan, and lead activities. A study using a larger, more diverse sample is needed to determine the efficacy of the intervention for the broader population and may allow us to further explore both care partner and interactive effects within the couple 5. Conclusions Post-stroke depression is complex and not well understood; currently, there are no proven treatments. Although not all persons with stroke develop mental health disorders or pathology, mental health post-stroke should be a focus of practice across the care spectrum. It is important to consider not only the patient’s mental health but also that of the care partner and the context of the couple’s relationship. This study demonstrates the potential benefits of a novel intervention to treat post-stroke depressive symptoms and lays the groundwork for future research in this area. We establish proof-of-concept by demonstrating that depressive symptoms can be lessened in persons with stroke and care partners with more significant depressive symptoms. The current study’s findings emphasize the importance of future research to establish the efficacy of the ReStoreD intervention in a fully powered study.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 1804 10 of 12 Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.L.T., M.R. and J.J.M. (Justin J. MacKenzie); methodology, A.L.T., M.R. and J.J.M. (Justin J. MacKenzie); software, A.L.T., B.R.W.B. and M.R.; validation, A.L.T.; formal analysis, B.R.W.B. and M.R.; investigation, A.L.T. and J.E.; resources, L.G.R. and J.J.M. (Jennifer J. Majersik); data curation, J.E.; writing—original draft preparation, A.L.T., M.R. and J.J.M. (Justin J. MacKenzie); writing—review and editing, A.L.T., M.R. and J.J.M. (Justin J. MacKenzie), B.R.W.B., J.E., B.C., L.G.R. and J.J.M. (Jennifer J. Majersik); visualization, A.L.T. and M.R.; supervision, A.L.T., L.G.R. and J.J.M. (Jennifer J. Majersik); project administration, A.L.T.; funding acquisition, A.L.T. and J.J.M. (Jennifer J. Majersik). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript Funding: This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH/NICHD R 03 HD 091432; PI: Terrill), UT StrokeNet (NIH/NINDS 5 U 10 NS 086606; PI: Majersik; NIH/NINDS 1 U 24 NS 107228: PI: Majersik), and NIH/NCATS (UL 1 TR 002538) Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of the University of Utah (IRB#00094857, approved 7 September 2016) Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study Data Availability Statement: The study was pre-registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT#03335358) Acknowledgments: We would like to acknowledge our team of research assistants who contributed to this research study. We also express our sincerest appreciation to the couples who participated in this study Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results References 1 Towfighi, A.; Ovbiagele, B.; El Husseini, N.; Hackett, M.L.; Jorge, R.E.; Kissela, B.M.; Mitchell, P.H.; Skolarus, L.E.; Whooley, M.A.; Williams, L.S. Poststroke Depression: A Scientific Statement for Healthcare Professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Stroke 2017 , 48 , e 30–e 43. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 2 Villa, R.F.; Ferrari, F.; Moretti, A. Post-stroke depression: Mechanisms and pharmacological treatment Pharmacol. Ther 2018 , 184 , 131–144. [ CrossRef ] 3 Owolabi, M.O. What Are the Consistent Predictors of Generic and Specific Post-Stroke Health-Related Quality of Life? Cerebrovasc Dis 2010 , 29 , 105–110. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 4 Kutlubaev, M.A.; Hackett, M.L. Part II: Predictors of Depression after Stroke and Impact of Depression on Stroke Outcome: An Updated Systematic Review of Observational Studies Int. J. Stroke 2014 , 9 , 1026–1036. [ CrossRef ] 5 Hadidi, N.; Treat-Jacobson, D.J.; Lindquist, R. Poststroke depression and functional outcome: A critical review of literature Heart Lung 2009 , 38 , 151–162. [ CrossRef ] 6 Ayerbe, L.; Ayis, S.; Crichton, S.; Wolfe, C.D.A.; Rudd, A.G. The long-term outcomes of depression up to 10 years after stroke; the South London Stroke Register J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2014 , 85 , 514–521. [ CrossRef ] 7 Loh, A.Z.; Tan, J.S.; Zhang, M.W.; Ho, R.C. The Global Prevalence of Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms Among Caregivers of Stroke Survivors J. Am. Med Dir. Assoc 2017 , 18 , 111–116. [ CrossRef ] 8 McCarthy, M.J.; Bauer, E. In Sickness and in Health: Couples Coping with Stroke across the Life Span Health Soc. Work 2015 , 40 , e 92–e 100. [ CrossRef ] 9 van Heugten, C.; Visser-Meily, A.; Post, M.; Lindeman, E. Care for carers of stroke patients: Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines J. Rehabil. Med 2006 , 38 , 153–158. [ CrossRef ] 10 Perrin, P.B.; Heesacker, M.; Hinojosa, M.S.; Uthe, C.E.; Rittman, M.R. Identifying at-risk, ethnically diverse stroke caregivers for counseling: A longitudinal study of mental health Rehabil. Psychol 2009 , 54 , 138–149. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 11 Perrin, P.B.; Heesacker, M.; Stidham, B.S.; Rittman, M.R.; Gonzalez-Rothi, L.J. Structural equation modeling of the relationship between caregiver psychosocial variables and functioning of individuals with stroke Rehabil. Psychol 2008 , 53 , 54–62. [ CrossRef ] 12 McCarthy, M.J.; Lyons, K.S.; Powers, L.E. Expanding Poststroke Depression Research: Movement Toward a Dyadic Perspective Top. Stroke Rehabil 2011 , 18 , 450–460. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 13 Bakas, T.; Clark, P.C.; Kelly-Hayes, M.; King, R.B.; Lutz, B.J.; Miller, E.L. Evidence for Stroke Family Caregiver and Dyad Interventions: A statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association and American Stroke Association Stroke 2014 , 45 , 2836–2852. [ CrossRef ]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 1804 11 of 12 14 Bakas, T.; McCarthy, M.; Miller, E.T. State-of-the-Science Nursing Review: Update on the State of the Evidence for Stroke Family Caregiver and Dyad Interventions Stroke 2017 , 48 , e 122–e 125. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 15 Terrill, A.L.; Reblin, M.; MacKenzie, J.J.; Cardell, B.; Einerson, J.; Berg, C.A.; Majersik, J.J.; Richards, L. Development of a novel positive psychology-based intervention for couples post-stroke Rehabil. Psychol 2018 , 63 , 43–54. [ CrossRef ] 16 Seligman, M.E.P.; Steen, T.A.; Park, N.; Peterson, C. Positive Psychology Progress: Empirical Validation of Interventions Am Psychol 2005 , 60 , 410–421. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 17 Dunn, D.S.; Dougherty, S.B. Prospects for a Positive Psychology of Rehabilitation Rehabil. Psychol 2005 , 50 , 305–311. [ CrossRef ] 18 Alschuler, K.N.; Arewasikporn, A.; Nelson, I.K.; Molton, I.R.; Ehde, D.M. Promoting resilience in individuals aging with multiple sclerosis: Results from a pilot randomized controlled trial Rehabil. Psychol 2018 , 63 , 338–348. [ CrossRef ] 19 Cohn, M.A.; Pietrucha, M.E.; Saslow, L.R.; Hult, J.R.; Moskowitz, J.T. An online positive affect skills intervention reduces depression in adults with type 2 diabetes J. Posit. Psychol 2014 , 9 , 523–534. [ CrossRef ] 20 Müller, R.; Gertz, K.J.; Molton, I.R.; Terrill, A.; Bombardier, C.H.; Ehde, D.; Jensen, M.P. Effects of a Tailored Positive Psychology Intervention on Well-Being and Pain in Individuals with Chronic Pain and a Physical Disability: A feasibility trial Clin. J. Pain 2016 , 32 , 32–44. [ CrossRef ] 21 Bolier, L.; Haverman, M.; Westerhof, G.J.; Riper, H.; Smit, F.; Bohlmeijer, E. Positive psychology interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies BMC Public Health 2013 , 13 , 119. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 22 Sin, N.L.; Lyubomirsky, S. Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis J. Clin. Psychol 2009 , 65 , 467–487. [ CrossRef ] 23 Cohn, M.A.; Fredrickson, B.L. In search of durable positive psychology interventions: Predictors and consequences of long-term positive behavior change J. Posit. Psychol 2010 , 5 , 355–366. [ CrossRef ] 24 Cook, W.L.; Kenny, D.A. The Actor–Partner Interdependence Model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies Int. J. Behav. Dev 2005 , 29 , 101–109. [ CrossRef ] 25 van Belle, G Statistical Rules of Thumb ; Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2002 26 Kroenke, K.; Spitzer, R.L.; Williams, J.B. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: Validity of a two-item depression screener Med Care 2003 , 41 , 1284–1292. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 27 Nasreddine, Z.S.; Phillips, N.A.; B é dirian, V.; Charbonneau, S.; Whitehead, V.; Collin, I.; Cummings, J.L.; Chertkow, H. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: A Brief Screening Tool for Mild Cognitive Impairment J. Am. Geriatr. Soc 2005 , 53 , 695–699, Corrigendum in J. Am. Geriatr. Soc 2019 , 67 , 1991. [ CrossRef ] 28 Barnay, J.-L.; Wauquiez, G.; Bonnin-Koang, H.; Anquetil, C.; P é rennou, D.; Piscicelli, C.; Lucas-Pineau, B.; Muja, L.; le Stunff, E.; de Boissezon, X.; et al. Feasibility of the Cognitive Assessment scale for Stroke Patients (CASP) vs. MMSE and MoCA in aphasic left hemispheric stroke patients Ann. Phys. Rehabil. Med 2014 , 57 , 422–435. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 29 Flowers, H.L.; Skoretz, S.A.; Silver, F.L.; Rochon, E.; Fang, J.; Flamand-Roze, C.; Martino, R. Poststroke Aphasia Frequency, Recovery, and Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil 2016 , 97 , 2188–2201.e 8. [ CrossRef ] 30 Sexton, E.; McLoughlin, A.; Williams, D.J.; Merriman, N.A.; Donnelly, N.; Rohde, D.; Hickey, A.; Wren, M.-A.; Bennett, K. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of cognitive impairment no dementia in the first year post-stroke Eur Stroke J 2019 , 4 , 160–171. [ CrossRef ] 31 Harris, P.A.; Taylor, R.; Thielke, R.; Payne, J.; Gonzalez, N.; Conde, J.G. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadatadriven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support J. Biomed. Inform 2009 , 42 , 377–381. [ CrossRef ] 32 Pilkonis, P.A.; Yu, L.; Dodds, N.E.; Johnston, K.L.; Maihoefer, C.C.; Lawrence, S.M. Validation of the depression item bank from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS ® ) in a three-month observational study J. Psychiatr Res 2014 , 56 , 112–119. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 33 Schalet, B.D.; Pilkonis, P.A.; Yu, L.; Dodds, N.; Johnston, K.L.; Yount, S.; Riley, W.; Cella, D. Clinical validity of PROMIS Depression, Anxiety, and Anger across diverse clinical samples J. Clin. Epidemiol 2016 , 73 , 119–127. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 34 Virani, S.S.; Alonso, A.; Benjamin, E.J.; Bittencourt, M.S.; Callaway, C.W.; Carson, A.P.; Chamberlain, A.M.; Chang, A.R.; Cheng, S.; Delling, F.N.; et al. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2020 Update: A Report from the American Heart Association Circulation 2020 , 141 , e 139–e 596. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 35 White, I.R.; Horton, N.; Carpenter, J.; Pocock, S.J. Strategy for intention to treat analysis in randomised trials with missing outcome data BMJ 2011 , 342 , d 40. [ CrossRef ] 36 Lee, S.-Y.; Song, X.-Y. Evaluation of the Bayesian and Maximum Likelihood Approaches in Analyzing Structural Equation Models with Small Sample Sizes Multivar. Behav. Res 2004 , 39 , 653–686. [ CrossRef ] 37 Cohen, J Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences ; Routledge Academic: New York, NY, USA, 1988 38 Cohen, J. A power primer Psychol. Bull 1992 , 112 , 155–159. [ CrossRef ] 39 Pucciarelli, G.; Vellone, E.; Savini, S.; Simeone, S.; Ausili, D.; Alvaro, R.; Lee, C.S.; Lyons, K.S. Roles of Changing Physical Function and Caregiver Burden on Quality of Life in Stroke Stroke 2017 , 48 , 733–739. [ CrossRef ] 40 Tseung, V.; Jaglal, S.B.; Salbach, N.M.; Cameron, J.I. Implementing Caregiver Support Programs in a Regional Stroke System Stroke 2019 , 50 , 3585–3591. [ CrossRef ]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 1804 12 of 12 41 Creasy, K.R.; Lutz, B.J.; Young, M.E.; Ford, A.; Martz, C. The Impact of Interactions with Providers on Stroke Caregivers’ Needs Rehabil. Nurs 2013 , 38 , 88–98. [ CrossRef ] 42 Jia, Y.; Shi, J.; Sznajder, K.K.; Yang, F.; Cui, C.; Zhang, W.; Yang, X. Positive effects of resilience and self-efficacy on World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument score among caregivers of stroke inpatients in China Psychogeriatrics 2021 , 21 , 89–99 [ CrossRef ]

Other Environmental Sciences Concepts:

[back to top]

Discover the significance of concepts within the article: ‘Intimate Relationships and Stroke’. Further sources in the context of Environmental Sciences might help you critically compare this page with similair documents:

Mud, Well-being, Mental health, Depression, Intimate relationship, Restored, Public health, Conceptualization, Dyad, Psychological effect, Informed consent, Statistical analysis, Emotional support, Quality of life, Research Assistant, Patient, Direct effect, Indirect effect, Clinical diagnosis, Methodology, Health status, Pilot study, Statistical Significance, Chronic medical condition, Small sample size, Social isolation, Cognitive impairment, Self efficacy, Symptom management, Stroke, Post-stroke depression, Institutional review board, Conflicts of interest, Physical Medicine, Intervention, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Mental health issue, Aphasia, Time effect, Physical functioning, Mental health disorder, Cognitive assessment, Biopsychosocial model, Study Limitation, Proof of concept, Psychosocial Needs, Physical function, Long-term health outcomes, Anhedonia, Significant cognitive impairment, Decreased energy, Intervention activities, Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, Positive psychology, Occupational therapies, Participant characteristics, Patient health questionnaire, Relationship satisfaction, Open access article, Creative Commons Attribution, Effect Size, Psychosocial factor, Clinicaltrials.gov, Neurologic Condition, Repeated-measures ANOVA, Resilience, Cognitive screening, Family medicine, Funding, Psychology, Community dwelling, Negative relationship, University of Utah, Social support network, Floor effect, Referral bias, Stroke patient, Significant time effect, Depression screener, Sensitivity analyses, Waitlist-control group, Post-stroke, Clinician, Stroke population, Formal analysis, Severe depressive symptoms, Stroke type, Depressive symptom, Meaningful participation, Expressive aphasia, Stroke survivor, Cognitive impairment no dementia, Depression after stroke, Neurology clinic, Dyadic intervention, Significant baseline difference, Environmental research, Stroke caregivers, Stroke outcome, Rehabilitation clinics, Intervention process, Novel intervention, Lawton Instrumental Activities, Self-report assessments, Jurisdictional claims, MDPI, Interactive effect, Academic Editor, Significant negative consequences, Multilevel modeling, Actor-Partner Interdependence Model, Bayesian Structural Equation Modeling, Social effect, Dyadic, Diverse sample, Positive psychology interventions.