Content uploaded by Dehisy Marisol Juarez Garcia
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dehisy Marisol Juarez Garcia on Jul 21, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Arnoldo Tellez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Arnoldo Tellez on Jul 18, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Psychology in Russia: State of the Art
Volume 10, Issue 2, 2017
Lomonosov
Moscow State
University
Russian
Psychological
Society
e eect of hypnotherapy on the quality
of life in women with breast cancer
Arnoldo Téllez a, c *, Dehisy M. Juárez-García a, c, Leticia Jaime-Bernal c ,
Carlos E. Medina De la Garza b, c, Teresa Sánchez a
a School of Psychology, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Nuevo León, Mexico
b School of Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Nuevo León, México
c Center for Research and Development in Health Sciences, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo
León, Nuevo León, México
* Corresponding author. E-mail: atellez50@hotmail.com
Background. Cancer is a chronic disease that signicantly aects the quality of life of
patients who suer from it, because they must face stressful situations, including their
diagnosis, surgical procedures, and the adverse eects of chemotherapy and radio-
therapy.
Objective. To evaluate the eects of hypnotherapy on breast cancer patients’ quality
of life during chemotherapy.
Design. A quasi-experimental design was used with a convenience sample.
Method. Two groups of patients with early breast cancer diagnoses were assigned to
either a control group that received standard medical care (n = 20), or a hypnotherapy
group (n = 20) that received 12 intensive sessions over the course of 1 month, and 12 ad-
ditional sessions over the course of 6 months. e patients’ quality of life was evaluated
using the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of
Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30).
Results. e hypnotherapy group showed a statistically signicant improvement
and a large eect size on the cognitive functioning and social functioning scales com-
pared to the control group. e physical functioning, role functioning, and quality of life
scales showed improvement with a medium eect size, but the changes were not statisti-
cally signicant.
Conclusion. e improvement observed in the cognitive functioning and social
functioning scales allows us to suggest that hypnotherapy improves the quality of life of
breast cancer patients during chemotherapy.
Keywords: hypnotherapy, quality of life, breast cancer, cognitive functioning and social
functioning
ISSN 2074-6857 (Print) / ISSN 2307-2202 (Online)
© Lomonosov Moscow State University, 2017
© Russian Psychological Society, 2017
doi: 10.11621/pir.2017.0216
http://psychologyinrussia.com
e eect of hypnotherapy on the quality of life in women with breast cancer 229
Introduction
According to the World Health Organization (WHO, 1948), health is a state of full
physical, mental, and social well-being, not simply the absence of an illness or ail-
ment. By contrast, quality of life refers to general well-being, including physical,
psychological, social, economic, and political features (Revicki et al., 2000).
Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) describes the quality of life of people
who suer from a specic illness, generally one that is chronic. Quality of life in
these cases is aected by the debilitating consequences of the illness itself, or by the
side eects of medical treatment. HRQOL can be dened as a subjective and multi-
dimensional state that encompasses physical, occupational, emotional, social, and
cognitive functioning, as well as levels of vitality, pain, sexuality, and spirituality
(Osoba, 2011).
Cancer is a chronic disease that signicantly aects the quality of life of patients
who suer from it because they must face stressful situations, including their diag-
nosis, surgical procedures, and the adverse eects of chemotherapy and radiother-
apy (Pocino et al., 2007). Women who have received medical treatment for breast
cancer regularly report pain, fatigue, diculty sleeping, nausea, vomiting, and hot
ashes (Ewertz & Jensen, 2011).
Breast cancer patients’ quality of life varies according to the type of treatment.
With regard to the type of surgery, radical surgery generates the greatest anxiety
and self-image problems. By contrast, women who have had reconstructive and
conservative surgery exhibit higher quality of life levels, particularly in dimensions
such as physical functioning, emotional role, and social role (Roman, Olivares,
Martín, Martin & Moreno, 2010; Royo, 2011).
Chemotherapy also negatively aects the quality of life of women who suer
from breast cancer, particularly because of the side eects that aect their physical,
functional, and emotional state. Sat-Muñoz et al. (2011) found that the emotional
dimension was the most strongly aected in Mexican women with breast cancer.
Longitudinal studies reveal that breast cancer patients’ quality of life is aected
even 6, 9 or 12 months aer the patients have nished treatment. e patients’
emotional functioning, role functioning and vitality are the dimensions that dete-
riorate the most, along with body image and sexual, cognitive, and social function-
ing (Domínguez et al., 2009; Härtl et al., 2010; Schou, Ekeberg, Sandvik, Hjermstad
& Ruland, 2005).
Because of the negative side eects that cancer treatment tends to have, a large
portion of scientic studies have focused on nding therapeutic techniques and
strategies to improve HRQOL in these patients (Fayers & Bottomley, 2002).
Hypnosis is a technique that has been used over the past few centuries to treat
chronic diseases, and it has had positive results in providing physical and psycholog-
ical well-being for patients undergoing it (Montgomery, Schnur, & Kravits, 2013).
Hypnosis has also been shown to be eective in managing various physical and psy-
chological symptoms in breast cancer patients, including distress, anxiety, hot ash-
es, fatigue, quality of sleep, and pain (Elkins, Fisher, Johnson, Carpenter, & Keith,
2013; Jaime, Téllez, Juárez, García, & García, 2015; Montgomery et al., 2014).
Moreover, hypnosis improves the quality of life in patients with metastases (Li-
ossi & White, 2001; Laidlaw, Bennet, Dwivedi, Nait & Gruzelier, 2005). A review by
230 A. Téllez, D. M. Juárez-García, L. Jaime-Bernal, C. E. Medina De la Garza, T. Sánchez
Cramer et al. (2014) conrms these ndings. However, to our knowledge, the direct
eects of hypnotherapy on quality of life and the elements of functioning during
chemotherapy, have not been studied previously.
e purpose of this study was to determine the eects of hypnotherapy on the
quality of life of women with breast cancer during chemotherapy, compared to a
control group that received standard medical care.
Method
is paper is a secondary analysis of a broader study of the eects of hypnosis on
the well-being of breast cancer patients, in which components of the quality-of-life
variable are analyzed. e psychosocial variables studied by this team are available
in another publication (Téllez et al, 2017). A quasi-experimental design was used
with a convenience sample.
Participants
Fiy-six patients were invited to participate. Of these, 16 rejected the invitation.
us 40 women with breast cancer were included in the initial stages (I, II, and III).
ese women had no metastases, no prior cancers, no previous participation in
hypnotherapy, and were scheduled to receive chemotherapy within the following 2
weeks. In the second phase of the study, 4 patients le the study voluntarily: 2 from
the intervention group and 2 from the control group.
In terms of socio-demographic characteristics, the median age was 52 years
for the intervention group and 52.2 years for the control group. With regard to
the marital status of the hypnotherapy group, 10 % were single, 45 % were mar-
ried, 15 % were in a domestic partnership, 15 % were separated, and 15 % were
widowed. In the control group, 15 % were single, 65 % were married, 5 % were in
a domestic partnership, 10 % were separated, and 5 % were widowed. All those
in the hypnotherapy group and 85 % of those in the control group had children.
With regard to socioeconomic status, the intervention group was 55 % lower-
class and 45 % middle-class, whereas the control group was 25 % lower-class and
75 % middle-class.
Procedure
is study was performed in Mexico, and was approved by the ethics committee in
Health Science of Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León. All of the participants
signed an informed consent form prior to beginning the procedure.
e 40 patients were referred by an oncologist who was part of the research
group. e rst 20 patients referred were assigned to the hypnotherapy interven-
tion group, and the next 20 patients were assigned to the control group with stan-
dard medical care only.
e intervention consisted of 24 hypnotherapy sessions, each lasted 90 min-
utes, and was divided into 2 phases. e rst phase involved 12 intensive sessions,
with a frequency of 3 sessions per week, over the course of 1 month. e second
phase involved 12 sessions, with a frequency of 1 session fortnightly, for 6 months.
ese sessions occurred throughout the chemotherapy treatment.
e eect of hypnotherapy on the quality of life in women with breast cancer 231
Evaluations were conducted before treatment, and at the end of the rst and
second phase. Evaluations of the control group were conducted in tandem with the
evaluations of the intervention group.
Hypnotherapeutic intervention
Hypnotic intervention: In each session, a suggestive technique was used targeting
specic symptoms for an average of 20 minutes. Aer the rst hypnotic induction,
a 10-minute pause was taken to discuss the experience, and have the patients rated
their feeling of relaxation on a visual analogue scale from 1 to10.
Second hypnotic technique: e Battino and South (2005) technique was used
in the 24 sessions, is technique consists of taking the patient’s hand and giving
her a series of suggestions directed at strengthening the immune system.
Each of the patients in the hypnotherapy group received MP3 equipment to
listen to the hypnotherapy techniques at home.
In Phase 1, two sessions focused on physical and psychological relaxation (Field,
1990), and one session focused on facilitating sleep and relaxation (Téllez, 2007).
ree sessions focused on strengthening self-esteem (Pelletier, 1979; Torem, 1990;
Cobián, 1997), four sessions focused on resolving traumatic events from the past
(Watkins & Watkins, 1990; Watkins, 1980; Wright, 1987; Greenberg & Malcolm,
2002), one session focused on physical healing (Dilts, Smith, Halbom &, 1998), and
one session was directed at increasing optimism (Korn & Pratt, 1990).
In Phase 2, ve sessions were focused on physical healing (Hammond, 1990),
two on physical and psychological relaxation (Hammond, 1990; Sacerdote, 1977),
two sessions focused on strengthening self-esteem (Gorman, 1974; Pekala & Ku-
mar, 1999), two sessions were used to strengthen positive expectations and motiva-
tion for change (Hammond, 1990; Téllez, 2007), and another session was used to
facilitate sleep and relaxation (Stanton, 1990).
Measures
e quality of life evaluation was performed using the European Organization for
Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-
C30), which is an integrated system used to evaluate the quality of life of patients
with cancer diagnoses. e EORTC QLQ-C30 consists of 30 items, 24 of which are
organized into 9 multi-item scales that represent various dimensions of quality of
life: an overall scale; 5 functioning scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and
social); and 3 scales to measure symptoms (fatigue, pain, and nausea) (Aaronson
et al., 1993). e EORTC QLQ-C30 is considered to be highly sensitive in detect-
ing changes in well-being in cancer patients during chemotherapy (Uwer et al.,
2011).
Data analysis
e data were analyzed using SPSS Statistics V. 21.0. A one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) with a change score was used, as recommended by Huck and McLean
(1975), to adjust any possible dierences in the pre-test evaluation. Additionally,
the size eect was obtained using the formula for pretest/post-test designs with a
232 A. Téllez, D. M. Juárez-García, L. Jaime-Bernal, C. E. Medina De la Garza, T. Sánchez
control group, using the adjustment to reduce bias (Morris, 2008). e condence
intervals for eect size were obtained using the Campbell collaboration online cal-
culator (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).
e clinical signicance, or practical value, of hypnotherapy was judged by
evaluating the size of its eect according to the Cocks et al. (2011) guide. ese
authors established guidelines for evaluating dierences between QLQ-C30 scores.
e authors used 4 eect size categories: large (l) = unequivocal clinical relevance;
medium (m) = clinical relevance is probable, but to a lesser degree; small (s) = a
change that is subtle but clinically relevant; and trivial = situations that are unli-
kely to have clinical relevance, or in which there were no dierences. Likewise, the
authors note that these eects sizes are dierent in each functioning scale: cogni-
tive 3–9 (s), 11–15 (m), and >15 (l); physical 5–14 (s), 14–22 (m), and >22 (l); role
6–19 (s), 19–29 (m), and >29 (l); social 5–11 (s), 11–15 (m), and >15 (l); and overall
quality of life 4–10 (s), 10–15 (m), and >15 (l).
Results
By group
In the rst month of intensive treatment, signicant dierences were observed in
the hypnotherapy group, with regard to the scales for physical and social function-
ing and overall quality of life. e last 2 scales showed a large eect size.
Aer 6 months, the most notable changes were observed on the scales for cog-
nitive functioning (p = 0.011, d = 1.18) and the social functioning scale (p = 0.015;
d = 1.02), with a large eect size.
Regarding physical functioning, a large eect size was observed (d = 0.91),
whereas for role functioning (d = 0.58) and overall quality of life (d = 0.51), a me-
dium eect size was observed, but this was not statistically signicant (Table 1).
erefore, if there is a therapeutic eect, its statistical signicance would have to be
achieved by increasing the sample size (statistical power) (Téllez, García & Corral,
2015).
On the symptom scales, although the patients in the intervention group showed
a greater reduction in symptoms, the changes were not signicant (Table 2).
Analysis using the Cocks et al. (2011) guide
According to the Cocks et al. (2011) interpretation guide, the scores obtained by
the hypnotherapy group revealed an improvement with a small eect size in regard
to social functioning at the end of the rst month, and at the end of 6 months (8.5
and 10 points, respectively). An improvement was obtained in regard to overall
quality of life, with a medium eect size at the end of 1 month (13 points), and a
small eect size at the end of 6 months (6 points). Hypnotherapy had a trivial eect
on cognitive functioning during the rst month; however, there was an improve-
ment with a large eect at the end of 6 months (19 points) (Figure 1).
e control group scores illustrated deterioration in various scales. Cognitive
functioning exhibited deterioration with a small eect size aer 1 month and aer
6 months (–3 and –6 points, respectively). Social functioning also exhibited dete-
e eect of hypnotherapy on the quality of life in women with breast cancer 233
Table 2. Score changes in the symptoms subscale of the QLQ-30
Symptoms
QLQ
Intensive Treatment 1 Month Regular Treatment 6 Months
Hyp nosis Control F(p) d(IC) Hyp nosis Control F(p) d(IC)
Fatigue –9.4 (17.3) –2.2 (20.2) 1.46 (0.234) 0.38 [–0.24, 1] 3.7 (17.4) 17.4 (35.5) 0.978 (0.330) 0.33 [–0.33, 1.0]
Nausea/Vomiting 1.6 (15.7) 8.2 (20.3) 1.29 (0.262) 0.35 [–0.26, 0.79] 1.8 (17.9) 1.9 (10.0) 0.002 (0.964) 0.01 [–0.64, 0.67]
Pain –7.5 (21.2) –5.8 (19.7) 0.066 (0.799) 0.25 [–0.36, 0.87] 0.92 (28.8) 3.9 (34.6) 0.000 (0.990) 0 [–0.66, 0.66]
Dyspnea –8.2 (14.6) –1.7 (31.3) 0.717 (0.402) 0.26 [–0.35, 0.89] 5.5 (23.5) 7.8 (27.2) 0.097 (0.758) 0.1 [–0.55, 0.76]
Insomnia –13.3 (41) –6.6 (35.2) 0.304 (0.585) 0.17 [–0.44, 0.79] –5.5 (52.7) 3.9 (52.5) 0.040 (0.843) 0.21 [–0.45, 0.87]
Loss of appetite –1.6 (19.9) 2.2 (24) 0.312 (0.580) 0.17 [–0.44, 0.79] 16.6 (28.5) 3.9 (38.8) 1.11 (0.299) 0.35 [–0.31, 1.02]
Constipation –6.4 (22.5) –4.9 (30.7) 0.031 (0.861) 0.17 [–0.44, 0.79] –5.5 (23.5) 12.5 (36.2) 3.03 (0.091) 0.58 [–0.08, 1.26]
Diarrhea –1.6 (14.7) 2.2 (32.5) .0136 (0.715) 0.11 [–0.5, 0.79] 24 (19.1) 9.8 (28.2) 3.63 (0.065) 0.64 [–0.03, 1.3]
Abbreviations: CSM — change score mean; d = eect size or the standardized mean dierence; SD — standard deviations; CI — condence interval at 95 %; p —
signicance level; QoL — quality of life
Table 1. Change scores for the QLQ-30 functionality subscale
QLQ-C30
Subscale
Intensive Treatment 1 Month Regular Treatment 6 Months
CSM Hyp nosis CSM Control F value (p) d [95 % CI] CSM Hyp nosis CSM Control F value (p) d [95 % CI]
Physical Functioning 4.9 (15.2) –3.3 (8.8) 4.36 (0.43)* 0.42 [–0.21, 1.00] 0 (16.3) –15.6 (30.2) 3.69 (0.063) 0.91 [–0.20, 1.60]
Role Functioning 5 (30.1) –0.83 (23.2) 0.469 (0.497) 0.21 [–0.41, 0.83] 5.5 (30.7) –8.8 (41.2) 1.37 (0.249) 0.58 [–0.09, 1.25]
Emotional Functioning 14.5 (17.9) 13.7 (22.6) 0.017 (0.898) 0.04 [–0.58, 0.66] 13.8 (18.9) 11.2 (26.1) 0.115 (0.736) –0.14 [–0.80, 0.52]
Cognitive Functioning 0.83 (15.7) –3.3 (19.1) 0.563 (0.457) 0.19 [–0.43, 0.81] 19.1 (20.5) –6.8 (35.2) 7.16 (0.11)* 1.18 [–0.45, 1.89]
Social Functioning 8.5 (30.6) –11.2 (18.5) 6.11 (0.18)* 0.83 [0.17, 1.50] 10.1 (30.3) –19.6 (38.2) 6.55 (0.15)* 1.02 [0.30, 1.71]
Global QoL 13.3 (26.6) –5.8 (29.9) 5.19 (0.28)* 1.0 [0.33, 1.60] 6.9 (23.2) –5.3 (25.5) 2.23 (0.144) 0.51 [–0.12, 1.14]
234 A. Téllez, D. M. Juárez-García, L. Jaime-Bernal, C. E. Medina De la Garza, T. Sánchez
Figure 1. Mean score change in cognitive functioning (QLQ-C30) mea-
sured at baseline and aer 1 and 6 months in hypnotherapy and control
conditions. is gure shows an improvement in cognitive functioning
in the hypnosis group and a decline in the control group.
rioration, with a small eect size aer 1 month (–11) and a large eect size aer 6
months (–19). Overall quality of life deteriorated with a small eect size aer the
rst month and aer 6 months (–5.8 and –5.3, respectively).
Analysis by the number of patients with clinical changes
e results obtained here were similar to the analyses of the group scores. Af-
ter 6 months, the patients in the control group worsened nearly 8 times more (6
vs 47 %) (p = 0.003, d = 1.04) in terms of cognitive functioning, and 3 times more
in terms of social functioning and overall quality of life, than those undergoing
hypnotherapy. All of these factors had a large eect size and were statistically sig-
nicant. e control group also had a higher number of patients whose physical
and role functioning worsened, with a medium eect size that was not statisti-
cally signicant. No changes were observed with regard to emotional functioning
(Table 3).
Table 3. Proportion of patients whose scores worsened on the QLQ-C30 scales (decline in
the eect size of d < 0.50).
QLQ-C30
Functioning Scale
% Px Worsened
Hypnosis
% Px Worsened
Control
p-value Eect size
(Cohen´s d)
Physical 22 59 0.11 0.66*
Role 28 47 0.12 0.54*
Emotional 16 11 0.38 0.43
Cognitive 6 47 0.003 1.04**
Social 17 59 0.03 0.80**
Global QoL 11 41 0.05 0.80**
* Medium eect size ** Large eect size. Px: patient
control hypnosis
1 MonthPre-treatment 6 Months
Cognitive functioning (mean change score)
25 –
20 –
15 –
10 –
5 –
0 –
–5 –
–10 –
e eect of hypnotherapy on the quality of life in women with breast cancer 235
Discussion
is study shows that 24 group hypnotherapy sessions over a period of 6 months
improved the quality of life for women with breast cancer during chemotherapy
treatment. In the three analyses performed, the functioning scales that showed im-
provement occurred for social, physical, and cognitive functioning, and for overall
quality of life based on the QLQ-C30, with medium to large eect sizes. e scales
for emotional functioning, role, and symptoms did not reveal signicant dier-
ences.
e use of dierent types of analysis, such as Fisher’s exact test to measure the
number of patients who improve or worsen, as well as the interpreting of QLQ-
C30 scores using the Cocks et al. (2011) guide, allowed us to determine whether
the treatment, in this case hypnotherapy, makes a real or palpable dierence in the
patient’s daily life (Kazdin, 1999).
One of the most notable eects of hypnotherapy was the improvement in cog-
nitive functioning. Cognitive alterations are among the most common symptoms
related to cancer (Janelsins et al., 2011). Evaluations of overall cognitive function-
ing as well as immediate free recall, delayed memory, verbal memory, selective at-
tention, attention span, and abstract reasoning indicate deterioration during and
aer breast cancer-treatment-related procedures (Lindner et al., 2014; Biglia et al.,
2012; Vearncombe et al., 2009; Ando-Tanabe et al., 2014).
Härtl et al., (2010) found out that aer a mastectomy and with the passage of
time, all QLQ-C30 functioning scales improve, except cognitive functioning. In-
deed, these cognitive decits can be detected up to 20 years aer having nished
chemotherapy (Koppelmans et al., 2012).
Although evidence exists of cognitive alterations produced by medical treat-
ment in patients with breast cancer, few studies have demonstrated the eective-
ness of psychological techniques in improving or preventing cognitive decline in
these patients. Some of the strategies that have demonstrated eectiveness in im-
proving cognitive alterations related to chemotherapy include cognitive training
(King & Green, 2015) and neuropsychological rehabilitation (Poppelreuter, Weis,
& Bartsch, 2009). However, our study provides the rst evidence that hypnotherapy
has a positive eect on self-reported cognitive functioning, which suggests that
hypnotherapy can be a useful tool in avoiding cognitive decline in patients with
cancer. However, it would be advisable to use specic neuropsychological tests to
conrm this nding.
Furthermore, although some studies have found that social functioning is not
aected during chemotherapy (Recalde & Samudio, 2012; Deniee, Cowman, &
Gooney, 2013), in this study, the control group declined by 20 points on this scale,
whereas the hypnotherapy group improved by 10 points. In other words, there was
a dierence of almost 30 points between the 2 groups. Richardson et al. (1997)
also reported an improvement in this type of functioning using guided imagery.
Ecace et al. (2006) highlight the importance of social functioning because it is a
predictive factor in cancer patient survival.
Likewise, in the hypnotherapy group, trivial changes were observed in physical
functioning aer the rst month, and no changes were observed aer 6 months,
whereas the control group worsened in this aspect. is indicates that hypnother-
apy patients maintained their normal level of physical functioning in spite of the
236 A. Téllez, D. M. Juárez-García, L. Jaime-Bernal, C. E. Medina De la Garza, T. Sánchez
chemotherapy treatment, and, as Kazdin (1999) has noted, a small change, and
even a lack of change, can be clinically relevant.
Physical functioning is important because it allows patients to achieve a certain
level of independence in performing their day-to-day activities, including getting
out of bed, dressing, and eating. It also increases the likelihood that the patient
will be able to reintegrate into work and social life, and improve her quality of life
(Campbell et al., 2012).
Compared to the control group, the overall quality of life of patients in the
intervention group improved. is is important because the perception of overall
quality of life implies a sense of general well-being for patients in their daily lives
(Bellver, 2007). Overall quality of life is one of the main factors taken into consid-
eration in developing and implementing eective interventions to promote well-
being and reduce the individual and social eects of cancer (Weaver et al., 2012).
As such, hypnotherapy can be considered an intervention that promotes quality of
life and the perception of well-being in patients with breast cancer.
In regard the role and emotional functioning scales, in the former we observed
small changes, although they were not signicant, whereas no changes were ob-
served in terms of emotional functioning. One possible explanation for this result
could be that this scale was considered informative by the patients reporting, and
was not very sensitive to clinical changes (Cocks et al., 2011).
Conclusion
is study described the benets of hypnotherapy for the quality of life of women
with cancer who receive chemotherapy. However, it ought to be mentioned that the
convenience sampling, the small sample size, and the lack of follow-up limit the
generalizability of the results. For this reason, we suggest that a randomized clini-
cal trial be performed with follow-up and sucient statistical power to conrm
these results. Additionally, it is important to use specic instruments to evaluate
the dierent scales. For example, it is necessary to use neuropsychological tests to
measure cognitive functioning, rather than rely on self-reporting.
is study oers preliminary evidence of the utility of hypnotherapy during
chemotherapy in increasing cognitive functioning and reducing adverse eects on
social and physical functioning and overall quality of life in women with breast
cancer.
References
Aaronson, N.K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N.J.... & Kaasa, S.
(1993). e European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A
quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the
National Cancer Institute, 85(5), 365–376. doi: 10.1093/jnci/85.5.365
Ando-Tanabe, N., Iwamitsu, Y., Kuranami, M., Okazaki, S., Yasuda, H., Nakatani, Y., & Miyaoka,
H. (2014). Cognitive function in women with breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemothera-
py and healthy controls. Breast Cancer, 21(4), 453–462. doi: 10.1007/s12282-012-0405-7
Battino, R., & South, T.L. (2005). Ericksonian approaches: A comprehensive manual. Wales, UK:
Crown House Publishing.
e eect of hypnotherapy on the quality of life in women with breast cancer 237
Bellver, A. (2007). “Ecacia de la terapia grupal en la calidad de vida y el estado emocional en
mujeres con cáncer de mama”. Psicooncología, 4(1), 133–142.
Biglia, N., Bounous, V.E., Malabaila, A., Palmisano, D., Torta, D.M.E., D’alonzo, M..... & Torta, R.
(2012). Objective and self-reported cognitive dysfunction in breast cancer women treated
with chemotherapy: a prospective study. European Journal of Cancer Care, 21(4), 485–492.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2011.01320.x
Campbell, K.L., Pusic, A.L., Zucker, D.S., McNeely, M.L., Binkley, J.M., Cheville, A.L., & Har-
wood, K.J. (2012). A prospective model of care for breast cancer rehabilitation: Function.
Cancer, 118(S8), 2300–2311. doi: 10.1002/cncr.27464
Cobián, M. (1997). Yo sí creo en la hipnosis. Santiago de Cuba: Oriente.
Cocks, K., King, M.T., Velikova, G., St-James, M.M., Fayers, P.M., & Brown, J.M. (2011). Evi-
dence-based guidelines for determination of sample size and interpretation of the European
Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core
30. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 29(1), 89–96. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.28.0107
Cramer, H., Lauche, R., Paul, A., Langhorst, J., Kümmel, S., & Dobos, G. (2014). Hypnosis in
breast cancer care: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Integrative Cancer
erapies, 14(1), 5–15. doi: 1534735414550035.
Deniee, S., Cowman, S., & Gooney, M. (2013) Symptoms, clusters and quality of life prior
to surgery for breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 23(17), 2491–2502. doi: 10.1111/
jocn.12430
Dilts, R., Smith, S., & Hallbom, T. (1998). Identicación y cambio de creencias. Barcelona: Edi-
ciones Urano, SA.
Domínguez Gil, M.R., Acosta Mosquera, M.E., Méndez Martín, I., Maestre Ramos, I., Pedrote
Ramírez, C., & Frutos Cantó, M. (2009). Evaluación de la Calidad de Vida tras el tratamien-
to primario del cáncer de mama. Index de Enfermería, 18(4), 246–248. doi: 10.4321/S1132-
12962009000400007
Ecace, F., Bottomley, A., Smit, E.F., Lianes, P., Legrand, C., Debruyne, C. … & Meerbeeck, J.V.
(2006). Is a patient's self-reported health-related quality of life a prognostic factor for sur-
vival in non-small-cell lung cancer patients? A multivariate analysis of prognostic factors of
EORTC study 08975. Annals of Oncology, 17(11), 1698–1704. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdl183
Elkins, G.R., Fisher, W.I., Johnson, A.K., Carpenter, J.S., & Keith, T.Z. (2013). Clinical hypnosis
in the treatment of postmenopausal hot ashes: A randomized controlled trial. Menopause,
20(3), 291–298. doi: 10.1097/GME.0b013e31826ce3ed.
Ewertz, M., & Jensen, A.B. (2011). Late eects of breast cancer treatment and potentials for reha-
bilitation. Acta Oncologica, 50(2), 187–193. doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2010.533190.
Fayers, P., & Bottomley, A. (2002). Quality of life research within the EORTC — the EORTC QLQ-
C30. European Journal of Cancer, 38(4), 125-133. doi: 10.1016/S0959-8049(01)00448-8
Field, E.S. (1990). Neurolinguistic programming as an adjunct to other psychotherapeutic/hyp-
notherapeutic interventions. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 32(3), 174–182. doi:
10.1080/00029157.1990.10402822
Gorman, B.J. (1974). An abstract technique of ego-strengthening. American Journal of Clinical
Hypnosis, 16(3), 209–211. doi: 10.1080/00029157.1974.10403679
Greenberg, L.S., & Malcolm, W. (2002). Resolving unnished business: Relating process to out-
come. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70(2), 406–416. doi: 10.1037/0022-006-
X.70.2.406
Hammond, D.C. (1990). Handbook of hypnotic suggestions and metaphors. New York: WW Nor-
ton & Company.
Härtl, K., Engel, J., Herschbach, P., Reinecker, H., Sommer, H., & Friese, K. (2010). Persona-
lity traits and psychosocial stress: Quality of life over 2 years following breast cancer di-
238 A. Téllez, D. M. Juárez-García, L. Jaime-Bernal, C. E. Medina De la Garza, T. Sánchez
agnosis and psychological impact factors. Psycho-Oncology, 19(2), 160–169. doi: 10.1002/
pon.1536.
Huck, S. W. & McLean, R. A. (1975). Using a repeated measure ANOVA to analyze the data
from a pretest-posttest design: A potentially confusing task. Psychological Bulletin, 82(4),
511–518. DOI: 10.1037/h0076767
Jaime Bernal, L., Téllez López, A., Juárez García, D.M., García Cadena, C.H., & García García, E.
(2015). El efecto de la hipnoterapia en la calidad de sueño de mujeres con cáncer de mama.
Psicooncología, 12(1), 39–49. doi: 10.5209/rev_PSIC.2015.v12.n1.48902
Janelsins, M.C., Mustian, K.M., Peppone, L.J., Sprod, L.K., Shayne, M., Mohile, S. … Morrow,
G.R. (2011). Interventions to alleviate symptoms related to breast cancer treatments and
areas of needed research. Journal of Cancer Science & erapy, 2, S2–001. doi: 10.4172/1948-
5956.S2-001
Kazdin, A.E. (1999). e meanings and measurement of clinical signicance. Journal of Consult-
ing and Clinical Psychology, 67(3), 332–339. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.67.3.332
King, S. & Green, H.J. (2015). Psychological intervention for improving cognitive function in
cancer survivors: A literature review and randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in Oncology,
5, 72. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2015.00072
Koppelmans, V., Breteler, M.M., Boogerd, W., Seynaeve, C., Gundy, C., & Schagen, S.B. (2012).
Neuropsychological performance in survivors of breast cancer more than 20 years af-
ter adjuvant chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 30(10), 1080–1086. doi: 10.1200/
JCO.2011.37.0189
Korn, E., & Pratt, G. (1990). Mental rehearsal: e protective shield. In: D. Corydon (Ed.) Hand-
book of hypnotic suggestions and metaphors (pp. 547). New York: W.W. Norton and Com-
pany.
Laidlaw, T., Bennet, B. M., Dwivedi, P., Naito, A., & Gruzelier, J. (2005). Quality of life and mood
changes in metastatic breast cancer aer training in self-hypnosis or Johrei: a short report.
Contemporary Hypnosis, 22(2), 84–93. doi: 10.1002/ch.27
Lindner, O.C., Phillips, B., McCabe, M.G., Mayes, A., Wearden, A., Varese, F., & Talmi, D. (2014).
A meta-analysis of cognitive impairment following adult cancer chemotherapy. Neuropsy-
chology, 28(5), 726-740. doi: 10.1037/neu0000064
Liossi, C., & White, P. (2001). Ecacy of clinical hypnosis in the enhancement of quality of life of
terminally ill cancer patients. Contemporary Hypnosis, 18(3), 145–160. doi: 10.1002/ch.228
Lipsey, M.W., & Wilson, D.B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis eect size calculator. [Online calcu-
lator]. Retrieved from: http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/escalc/html/EectSizeCalcu-
lator-SMD-main.php
Montgomery, G.H., David, D., Kangas, M., Green, S., Sucala, M., Bovbjerg, D.H. … Schnur, J.B.
(2014). Randomized controlled trial of a cognitive-behavioral therapy plus hypnosis inter-
vention to control fatigue in patients undergoing radiotherapy for breast cancer. Journal of
Clinical Oncology, 32(6), 557–563. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.49.3437
Montgomery, G., Schnur, J. & Kravits, K. (2013). Hypnosis for cancer care: Over 200 years young.
Hypnosis for Cancer Care, 63(1), 31–44. doi: 10.3322/caac.21165
Morris, S.B. (2008). Estimating eect sizes from the pretest-posttest-control group designs. Or-
ganizational Research Methods, 11(2), 364–386. doi: 10.1177/1094428106291059
Organización Mundial de la Salud. (1948). Constitución de la Organización Mundial de la Salud.
Retreived from: http://apps.who.int/gb/bd/PDF/bd48/basic-documents-48th-edition-sp.
pdf?ua=1#page=7
Osoba, D. (2011). Health-related quality of life and cancer clinical trials. erapeutic Advances in
Medical Oncology, 3(2), 57–71. doi: 10.1177/1758834010395342
e eect of hypnotherapy on the quality of life in women with breast cancer 239
Pekala, R.J., & Kumar, V.K. (1999). Ego strengthening protocol. Coatesville, P.A.: Coatesville VA
Medical center.
Pelletier, A.M. (1979). ree uses of guided imagery in hypnosis. American Journal of Clinical
Hypnosis, 22(1), 32–36. doi: 10.1080/00029157.1979.10403998
Pocino, M., Luna, G., Canelones, P., Mendoza, A., Romero, G., Palacios, L.E., Rivas, L., & Castes,
M. (2007). La relevancia de la intervención psicosocial en pacientes con cáncer de mama.
Psicooncología, 4(1), 59–73.
Poppelreuter, M., Weis, J., & Bartsch, H.H. (2009). Eects of specic neuropsychological train-
ing programs for breast cancer patients aer adjuvant chemotherapy. Journal of Psychosocial
Oncology, 27(2), 274–296. doi: 10.1080/07347330902776044.
Recalde, M.T. & Samudio, M. (2012). Calidad de vida en pacientes con cáncer de mama en
tratamiento oncológico ambulatorio en el Instituto de Previsión Social en el año 2010. Me-
morias del Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Salud, 10(2), 13–29.
Revicki, D.A., Osoba, D., Fairclough, D., Barofsky, I., Berzon, R., Leidy, N.K., & Rothman, M.
(2000). Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling
and promotional claims in the United States. Quality of Life Research, 9(8), 887–900. doi:
10.1023/A: 1008996223999
Richardson, M.A., Post-White, J., Grimm, E.A., Moye, L.A., Singletary, S.E., & Justice, B. (1997).
Coping, life attitudes, and immune responses to imagery and group support aer breast
cancer treatment. Alternative erapies in Health and Medicine, 3(5), 62–71.
Román, J., Olivares, M., Martín, M., & Moreno, A. (2010). Valoración biopsicosocial en pa-
cientes con patología mamaria oncológica quirúrgica. Psicooncología, 7(1), 81–97.
Royo, A. (2011). Calidad de vida en pacientes intervenidas de cáncer de mama. Trabajo de Inves-
tigación. Barcelona: Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Departamento de Medicina Inter-
na. UAB 1, 5–8. Retreived from: http://ddd.uab.cat/pub/trerecpro/2012/hdl_2072_181264/
TR-RoyoAznar.pdf
Sacerdote, P. (1977). Applications of hypnotically elicited mystical states to the treatment of
physical and emotional pain. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,
25(4), 309–324. doi: 10.1080/00207147708415987
Sat-Muñoz, D., Contreras-Hernández, I., Balderas-Peña, L., Hernández-Chávez, G. A., Solano-
Murillo, P., Mariscal-Ramírez, I., Morgan-Villela, G. (2011). Calidad de vida en mujeres
mexicanas con cáncer de mama en diferentes etapas clínicas y su asociación con caracterís-
ticas socio-demográcas, estados comórbidos y características del proceso de atención en
el Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. Value in Health, 14(5), 133–136. doi: 10.1016/j.
jval.2011.05.027
Schou, I., Ekeberg, O., Sandvik, L., Hjermstad, M.J., & Ruland, C.M. (2005). Multiple predic-
tors of health-related quality of life in early stage breast cancer: Data from a year follow-up
study compared with the general population. Quality of Life Research, 14(8), 1813–1823.
doi: 10.1007/s11136-005-4344-z
Stanton, H.E. (1990). Dumping the “rubbish”. In D. Corydon (Ed.) Handbook of hypnotic sugges-
tions and metaphors (pp. 313). New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Téllez, A. (2007). Hipnosis Clínica: Un Punto de Vista Ericksoniano. México: Trillas.
Téllez, A., García, C.H., & Corral-Verdugo, V. (2015). Eect size, condence intervals and sta-
tistical power in psychological research. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 8(3), 27–46.
doi: 10.11621/pir.2015.0303
Téllez, A., Rodríguez, C., Martínez, J., Juárez-García, D., Sánchez-Armaas, O., Sánchez, T., Se-
gura, G & Jaime-Bernal, L. (2017). Psychological Eects of Group Hypnotherapy on Breast
Cancer Patients during chemotherapy. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 60(1), 68–84.
doi: 10.1080/00029157.2016.1210497
240 A. Téllez, D. M. Juárez-García, L. Jaime-Bernal, C. E. Medina De la Garza, T. Sánchez
Torem, M.S. (1990). Ego strengthening. In D. Corydon (Ed.) Handbook of hypnotic suggestions
and metaphors (pp. 110–112). New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Uwer, L., Rotonda, C., Guillemin, F., Miny, J., Kaminsky, M. C., Mercier, M. … Conroy, T.
(2011). Responsiveness of EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-CR38 and FACT-C quality of life ques-
tionnaires in patients with colorectal cancer. Health Quality of Life Outcomes, 9(1), 70. doi:
10.1186/1477-7525-9-70
Vearncombe, K.J., Rolfe, M., Wright, M., Pachana, N.A., Andrew, B., & Beadle, G. (2009). Pre-
dictors of cognitive decline aer chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. Journal of the In-
ternational Neuropsychological Society, 15(06), 951–962. doi: 10.1017/S1355617709990567
Watkins, H.H. (1980). e silent abreaction. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Hypnosis, 28(2), 101–113. doi: 10.1080/00207148008409833
Watkins, J.G. & Watkins, H.H. (1990). Dissociation and displacement: Where goes the “ouch?”
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 33(1), 1–10. doi: 10.1080/00029157.1990.10402895
Weaver, K.E., Forsythe, L.P., Reeve, B.B., Alfano, C.M., Rodriguez, J.L., Sabatino, S.A., … Row-
land, J.H. (2012). Mental and physical health–related quality of life among US cancer
survivors: population estimates from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer
Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 21(11), 2108–2117. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-
12-0740
Wright, M.E. (1987). Clinical practice of hypnotherapy. New York: Guilford Press.
Original manuscript received August 18, 2016
Revised manuscript accepted April 18, 2017
First published online June 30, 2017
