4.6 Article

Long-term Harm of Low Preparedness for a Wife's Death From Cancer-A Population-based Study of Widowers 4-5 Years After the Loss

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 172, Issue 4, Pages 389-396

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwq147

Keywords

anxiety; bereavement; depression; grief; neoplasms; quality of life; sleep deprivation; widowhood

Funding

  1. Swedish Cancer Society [4621-B01-01XAC, 4621-B04-04XAB]
  2. Swedish Research Council [K2002-27VX-14317-01A]
  3. Stockholm City Council
  4. Stockholm Cancer Foundation
  5. Karolinska Institutet

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The authors examined the impact of a widower's preparedness before his wife's death from cancer on his risk of long-term morbidity. In a population-based study, 691 (76%) of 907 Swedish men who lost a wife to breast, ovarian, or colon cancer in 2000 or 2001 answered an anonymous questionnaire in 2004 or 2005 measuring preparedness at the time of the wife's death and psychological well-being at follow-up. Men aged 38-61 years with a low degree of preparedness at the time of their spouse's death had increased risk of psychological morbidity and other symptoms, such as anxiety (adjusted relative risk (aRR) = 2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.0, 4.3), a heightened startle response (aRR = 5.3, 95% CI: 1.2, 23.6), emotional numbness (aRR = 2.1, 95% CI: 1.2, 3.6), little or no grief resolution (aRR = 2.7, 95% CI: 1.3, 5.4), and sleep disorders (aRR = 2.3, 95% CI: 1.2, 4.3), 4-5 years after the loss. For older widowers (aged 62-80 years), a low degree of preparedness increased the risk of having repeated painful memories (aRR = 2.8, 95% CI: 1.5, 5.2) and a heightened startle response (aRR = 5.7, 95% CI: 1.5, 21.4) at follow-up. These results show that to improve the long-term psychological well-being of widowers, it may be fruitful to identify care-related facilitators and inhibitors of preparedness.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available