Promoting adjustment after treatment for cancer

Article (PDF Available)inCancer 104(11 Suppl):2608-13 · December 2005with48 Reads
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.21246 · Source: PubMed
Abstract
The transition from the period of diagnosis and medical treatment of cancer to survivorship (i.e., the reentry phase) is an understudied phase in the cancer trajectory. The objectives of this report were 1) to illustrate several adaptive tasks of the reentry phase, 2) to provide examples of research on factors that predict positive adjustment during this phase, and 3) to discuss interventions that address the adaptive tasks of early cancer survivorship. Although the pertinent empirical literature is scarce, accounts from cancer survivors, healthcare professionals, and qualitative researchers converge to suggest several themes in adaptive tasks during reentry. Drawing from the authors' work and that of others, the authors have described common expectancies held by many individuals approaching reentry (e.g., "I shouldn't need support"), typical concerns during this phase (e.g., concern over cancer recurrence), and personal and contextual factors that can facilitate and hinder adjustment. Promising psychosocial interventions have been developed for individuals in the reentry period. Continued research will be necessary to characterize this important phase of cancer survivorship.

Figures

Cancer Survivorship: Resilience Across the Lifespan
Supplement to Cancer
Promoting Adjustment after Treatment for Cancer
Annette L. Stanton,
Ph.D.
1
Patricia A. Ganz,
M.D.
2
Julia H. Rowland,
Ph.D.
3
Beth E. Meyerowitz,
Ph.D.
4
Janice L. Krupnick,
Ph.D.
5
Sharon R. Sears,
Ph.D.
6
1
Department of Psychology, University of Califor
-
nia–Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
2
Division of Cancer Prevention and Control Re
-
search, School of Public Health and Jonsson Com-
prehensive Cancer Center, University of California–
Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
3
Office of Cancer Survivorship, National Cancer
Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
4
Department of Psychology, University of South
-
ern California, Los Angeles, California.
5
Department of Psychiatry, Georgetown University
Medical Center, Washington, DC.
6
Psychology Service, Veteran’s Administration
Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California.
Presented at Cancer Survivorship: Resilience
Across the Lifespan, Washington, DC, June 2– 4,
2002.
Supported in part by Grant R01 CA63028 from the
National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.
Address for reprints: Annette L. Stanton, Ph.D.,
Department of Psychology, 1285 Franz Hall, Box
951563, University of California, Los Angeles, Los
Angeles, CA 90095-1563; Fax: (310) 206-3566;
E-mail: astanton@ucla.edu
Received February 28, 2005; accepted May 4,
2005.
The transition from the period of diagnosis and medical treatment of cancer to
survivorship (i.e., the reentry phase) is an understudied phase in the cancer
trajectory. The objectives of this report were 1) to illustrate several adaptive tasks
of the reentry phase, 2) to provide examples of research on factors that predict
positive adjustment during this phase, and 3) to discuss interventions that address
the adaptive tasks of early cancer survivorship. Although the pertinent empirical
literature is scarce, accounts from cancer survivors, healthcare professionals, and
qualitative researchers converge to suggest several themes in adaptive tasks during
reentry. Drawing from the authors’ work and that of others, the authors have
described common expectancies held by many individuals approaching reentry
(e.g., “I shouldn’t need support”), typical concerns during this phase (e.g., concern
over cancer recurrence), and personal and contextual factors that can facilitate and
hinder adjustment. Promising psychosocial interventions have been developed for
individuals in the reentry period. Continued research will be necessary to charac-
terize this important phase of cancer survivorship. Cancer 2005;104(11 Suppl):
2608–13. © 2005 American Cancer Society.
KEYWORDS: cancer, survivorship, quality of life, reentry.
“N
ow, every little thing has me petrified! Any ache means the
cancer is back…but, then, I worry that, if part of my mind still
believes the cancer will come back, maybe it will. Just trying to think
positively can cause stress. I think the hardest part of this week has
been the sense of loss I’ve felt being finished with treatment. You
spend so many months doing everything you can to fight the disease,
even just relaxing to fight it, and then the doctors have completed all
of your treatments. How do I pick up the pieces?”
These words from a breast cancer research participant
1,2
who
recently had completed medical treatments vividly capture some of
the distinct challenges that can accompany the phase of transition
from “cancer patient” to “person,” that is, the period of early survi-
vorship that constitutes the several months after the completion of
primary treatments for cancer. The objectives of this report were 1) to
describe adaptive tasks of the posttreatment phase, 2) to illustrate
research on factors that predict positive adjustment during this phase
of reentry, and 3) to provide examples of promising interventions
designed to address the adaptive tasks of early survivorship.
It is important to note that most individuals who confront a
cancer diagnosis adjust well. On general measures of psychological
adjustment and quality of life, it is often found that cancer patients
are indistinguishable from the general population by 1 or 2 years after
diagnosis, given that treatment is complete and the cancer con-
trolled.
3–7
Within this context of overall positive adjustment, however,
two points deserve mention. First, there is substantial variability in
adjustment. The majority of patients do well, and a subset are at risk
for high distress and life disruption.
4,7
Second, rather than producing
2608
© 2005 American Cancer Society
DOI 10.1002/cncr.21246
Published online 24 October 2005 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
global dysfunction, cancer may engender what
Andersen et al. have called “islands” of disruption that
occur in particular life domains and at particular
points in the cancer trajectory.
8
We focus here on the
posttreatment phase as one potential island of disrup-
tion. Research focusing on this phase is sparse com-
pared with that on the earlier phases of diagnosis and
treatment; however, as one woman with gynecologic
cancer said, the treatment period is only the first
chapter.
9
Furthermore, extant research primarily tar
-
gets women with breast cancer. Although no standard
exists for defining the boundaries of this transition,
and individual variability in its experience is likely, we
view the year after completion of primary medical
treatments (i.e., surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy)
as constituting the reentry phase.
The Adaptive Tasks of Reentry
Cancer patients themselves and the clinicians working
with them alerted us to the distinct challenges accom-
panying the reentry phase. Twenty years ago, Dr.
Fitzhugh Mullan, Chief Medical Officer of the Office of
Medical Applications of Research at the National In-
stitutes of Health, wrote about his own experience
with cancer and what he called the “reentry”
phase.
10,11
The themes Dr. Mullan described in his
process of the resumption of life as an active adult
10
are remarkably similar to those that were identified by
other cancer survivors,
12,13
healthcare profession
-
als,
9,12–15
and qualitative researchers
16–19
over the next
2 decades. An important point made by those writers
was that the challenges faced during reentry often are
unanticipated and leave the individual feeling ill-pre-
pared to manage them.
12
Instead of being able to
predict the challenges, many patients and their inti-
mate others hold expectancies that we may describe
as the “myths of treatment completion” (see Table 1).
The first myth is the expectation that the end of
treatment should be celebrated. Although treatment
completion represents a major milestone in the can-
cer trajectory and often is accompanied by relief and
positive emotions,
17
many also discover that the work
of processing emotions and finding meaning are just
beginning. For instance, one research participant said
that treatment just “flew by” and that she was not hit
with the reality of having cancer until the end of
treatment. Furthermore, treatment provides a vehicle
for control, a focus for the patient’s energy, and a way
to cope through active engagement. At treatment
completion, the individual may be left with the loom-
ing question, “…what do I do now?”
A second common expectation is that the individ-
ual should recover soon after the completion of treat-
ment. After all, medical treatments are supposed to
leave you feeling better. If lingering fatigue or other
physical compromises come as a surprise, then they
may prompt self-imposed demands to push past their
own physical limits too quickly or misattributions,
such as a fear that the cancer is still there. The inter-
personal circle also can promote such expectations in
communicating an assumption that the individual will
return promptly to old roles once treatment is com-
pleted. Patients sometimes perceive that individuals
on the outside assume that, once the patient is cured,
they will be ready to return to whatever they did
before with the full vim and vigor they had before
cancer, as though nothing had happened.
16
A third expectation is that the patient should re-
turn quickly to their prediagnosis sense of self. How-
ever, an altered sense of self is possible. In one report,
a breast cancer patient commented that, when she
stood in front of a mirror, she was bothered less by the
missing breast than the fact that her hair color was
different: She still saw a sick person when she looked
in the mirror, which was a reminder of what she went
through during treatment.
17
In addition to confront
-
ing physical reminders of the cancer experience and a
new sense of vulnerability, however, individuals with
cancer also may experience an enhanced sense of self
and the world after treatment. Consistent evidence
demonstrates that cancer patients find benefit in their
experience. For example, Sears et al.
20
observed that,
shortly after the completion of treatment, 83% of a
sample of breast cancer patients cited at least 1 benefit
in their experience, enjoying a new sense of personal
strength (9% of benefits cited), spiritual growth (6%),
life possibilities (11%), life appreciation (12%), atten-
tion to health behaviors (13%), and enhanced relation-
ships (46%).
A fourth myth is that the patient no longer should
need support after treatment is over. Both the inter-
personal support system and the medical treatment
team rallies around the affected individual during the
acute diagnostic and treatment period. Cancer pa-
tients often comment on the relatively sharp down-
turn in active support once they complete treat-
ment.
16,19
Patients sometimes have no one to talk with
once their treatment is over.
16
The motivation of loved
ones to see the patient as cured, the lack of regular
contact with other cancer patients while awaiting
medical treatment, and the medical team’s congratu-
latory “I’ll see you in 3 months!,” all can contribute to
TABLE 1
Myths of Treatment Completion
I should be celebrating
I should feel well
I should be the precancer me
I should not need support
Promoting Posttreatment Adjustment/Stanton et al. 2609
a sense of isolation once treatment ends. The com-
fortable net of safety and support can diminish
quickly. Schnipper
13
observed clinically that individu
-
als are more likely to seek a support group after treat-
ment completion than in the phases of diagnosis and
treatment.
Counter to the expectation that treatment com-
pletion and full recovery of health and well being
occur simultaneously, the literature suggests that
treatment completion can be disruptive psychologi-
cally. For example, Beisecker et al.
17
reported that, 6
months after the completion of treatment, the major-
ity of their breast cancer patient sample had not an-
ticipated the lingering effects of chemotherapy. Fur-
thermore, Ward et al.
21
found that 30% of a sample of
38 breast cancer patients reported that treatment
completion was upsetting, and some in our own group
have observed that 27% of patients rated the end of
radiation and 48% rated the end of chemotherapy as
moderately or extremely stressful in a study of 160
women with breast cancer.
22
In a longitudinally de
-
signed study, McQuellon et al.
23
found that energy
levels had recovered to only 70% of normal at 1 year
after bone marrow transplantation.
We suggest that the individual completing treat-
ment often confronts adaptive tasks in four domains:
emotional functioning, physical functioning, interper-
sonal relationships, and life perspectives. These do-
mains resemble those identified in quality-of-life
research.
24
However, the content and relative impor
-
tance of the facets within each domain are the factors
that are likely to vary as a function of the specific point
in the cancer trajectory. Central concerns of partici-
pants in a completed trial illustrate these domains.
Our randomized, controlled trial tests a structured,
educational intervention (Moving Beyond Cancer) for
women who are beginning the reentry phase after
breast cancer treatment. We used behavioral self-reg-
ulation
25–27
and stress and coping theories
28,29
to
guide our hypothesis that gaining preparatory infor-
mation on what to expect during the phase of cancer
recovery and instruction and encouragement in the
use of coping strategies oriented toward actively ap-
proaching the adaptive tasks will contribute to posi-
tive adjustment in the four life domains, perhaps
moderated by perceived preparedness for reentry.
Women were registered for the trial shortly after they
underwent surgery for breast cancer, and they com-
pleted baseline measures and were randomized (n
558 patients) to 1 of 3 intervention arms within
approximately 3 months after the completion of pri-
mary medical treatments. In one arm, women partic-
ipated individually in two structured sessions with a
trained educator. Women reviewed their own con-
cerns in the four domains as part of the first session;
then, they identified a primary concern for which to
develop an action plan.
Fully 51% of the women in this trial arm had
central concerns in the emotional domain, with 39%
reporting fear of cancer recurrence as their dominant
concern. The physical domain was of most concern
for 26% of women (e.g., weight gain, menopausal
symptoms). Of course, the content of these facets
would change given a different sample. Incontinence
and erectile dysfunction would be included for men
with prostate cancer, for example.
30–32
Eleven percent
of women reported primary concerns in each of the
domains of interpersonal relationships (e.g., partner,
work relationships) and life perspectives (e.g., lifestyle
change, finding meaning). Only five women identified
no major concern for the reentry phase.
Additional evidence suggests that individuals with
cancer confront specific concerns during the reentry
phase, with accompanying information needs. Luker
and colleagues
33
found that 105 patients with breast
cancer reported gaining useful information at the time
of diagnosis from medical professionals. At an average
of 21 months later, however, this sample reported
gaining information primarily from the popular media
and often reported discomfort in requesting informa-
tion from medical providers. The majority (66%) re-
ported information needs that had not been met at
follow-up (e.g., information about the likelihood of
cure of breast cancer and about the risk to family of
developing cancer). In a sample of 223 women who
were treated for early-stage breast cancer within the
prior year,
34
the most frequent concerns were fear of
cancer recurrence, pain, death, harm from adjuvant
treatment, and medical bills. In a sample of 231 breast
cancer survivors
35
(note that most had been diagnosed
3–5 yrs earlier), 48% reported moderate-to-high un-
met needs for information on dealing with fears about
cancer recurrence, the most frequently endorsed un-
met need among 52 rated information needs. Younger
patients with breast cancer reported greater informa-
tion needs in the psychological arena than older
women. The evidence that many cancer patients en-
counter unanticipated and lingering difficulties in
multiple life domains during this phase signals the
importance of identifying factors that contribute to
positive adjustment in the year after treatment.
Predictors of Positive Adjustment During the Reentry
Phase
Stress and coping theories
28,29
provide a general con
-
ceptual framework for identifying contributors to pos-
itive adjustment after cancer treatment. Figure 1
shows that such contributors to adjustment in the four
domains can arise from the interpersonal and envi-
ronmental context; attributes of the individual; dis-
2610 CANCER Supplement December 1, 2005 / Volume 104 / Number 11
ease and treatment characteristics; and what the indi-
vidual thinks and does in response to the cancer
experience. Little research has focused specifically on
predictors of positive adjustment during the reentry
phase.
Stanton and colleagues
1,36
have conducted two
studies focusing on the reentry phase in patients with
early-stage breast cancer. In the first study,
36
they
followed 92 patients with breast cancer from shortly
after treatment completion through 3 months, with an
additional assessment at 1 year. It was hypothesized
that approach-oriented coping strategies (i.e., coping
directed toward active engagement with the stressor,
such as planning, problem-solving, emotional expres-
sion, and positive reappraisal) would promote en-
hanced physical and psychological health across time.
The roles of coping through emotional expression and
through positive reappraisal were of particular inter-
est. The investigators predicted that these strategies
would be particularly useful for women in receptive
social contexts and for women high in hope, which is
a sense of goal-directed determination and ability to
generate pathways to meet goals.
37
Analyses revealed that coping through emotional
expression maintained consistent relations with the
dependent variables, controlling for initial values on
the dependent variables and participant age.
36
Specif
-
ically, women who, at treatment completion, reported
coping with their cancer experience through express-
ing their emotions demonstrated enhanced physical
health, had fewer medical appointments for cancer-
related morbidities, and reported lowered distress and
increased vigor over the next 3 months compared with
women who were less expressive emotionally. Coping
through positive reappraisal predicted increased vigor
and enhanced self-reported health at 3 months and at
12 months as well as greater self-reported posttrau-
matic growth at 1 year.
20
Personal and social factors also were important
during this reentry phase. Emotionally expressive cop-
ing predicted a decrease in distress and fewer cancer-
related medical appointments for women high in
hope, and it predicted improved quality of life for
women in receptive social contexts. Furthermore, ap-
proach-oriented coping strategies mediated the rela-
tions between hope and positive outcomes.
These findings suggest that positive social con-
texts, personal attributes, and particular approach-
oriented coping strategies can contribute to adjust-
ment in several domains during the reentry phase.
Other research has suggested that good candidates for
predictors of cancer-specific adjustment problems in
this phase may be younger age,
36,38
receipt of chemo
-
therapy,
39–42
and use of more avoidant coping pro
-
cesses.
36,43
Continued research will aid in identifying
additional protective and risk factors for adjustment in
the reentry phase, revealing whether predictors of
positive adjustment during this phase bode well for
adjustment over the long run and determining the
utility of these findings for the development of clinical
interventions.
Interventions to Promote Posttreatment Adaptation
Longitudinal research has demonstrated that coping
through emotional expression and positive reap-
praisal predicts positive adjustment across time, but a
stronger test of the utility of these coping strategies
involves an experimental design. An example of such
research is a small, randomized, controlled trial of a
writing intervention to promote reentry adjustment.
1
In that trial, the researchers hypothesized that induc-
ing women to write about either their deepest
thoughts and feelings about their breast cancer expe-
rience or the positive aspects of their experience
would promote positive psychological and physical
health outcomes compared with writing about the
facts of their experience with cancer. A second hy-
pothesis was that women who tend to avoid their
thoughts and feelings regarding cancer may benefit
more from focusing on the positive aspects of their
experience, whereas women who are low in avoidance
may benefit more from full expression.
These hypotheses were tested in a trial of 60 pa-
tients with early-stage breast cancer who were ran-
domized to 1 of 3 writing arms shortly after they
completed medical treatment and engaged in 4 writ-
ing sessions, with 1-month and 3-month follow-up
assessments.
1
With regard to psychological outcomes,
the writing intervention was effective differentially for
women high and low in cancer-related avoidance,
whereas the conditions revealed main effects on phys-
ical health outcomes. Specifically, as hypothesized,
women who were high in avoidance became less dis-
FIGURE 1. This chart illustrates the conceptual framework for posttreatment
adjustment.
Promoting Posttreatment Adjustment/Stanton et al. 2611
tressed if they wrote about the positive aspects of their
cancer experience, and less avoidant participants be-
came less distressed if they wrote about their deepest
thoughts and feelings. With regard to physical out-
comes, the expressive disclosure condition produced a
significant decrease in self-reported somatic symp-
toms relative to the fact control (i.e., writing about
facts of the breast cancer experience). In addition,
both the expressive disclosure and benefit-finding
conditions were superior to the fact control on an-
other health-related outcome, yielding fewer medical
appointments for cancer-related morbidities over the
following 3 months.
The demonstrated effectiveness of the benefit-
finding condition deserves mention. We agree strongly
with Holland and Lewis
44
and others
45
who have cau
-
tioned against the tyranny of positive thinking
44
for
cancer patients. Characteristics of this trial may have
allowed for this condition’s effectiveness. First,
women on average had been diagnosed for several
months when they entered the trial and likely had the
opportunity to express negative emotions during that
time. Thus, the benefit-finding condition may have
prompted balanced emotional expression. Asking
women to describe benefits immediately upon cancer
diagnosis may have produced very different out-
comes. Second, we did not prescribe particular bene-
fits to women but, rather, encouraged women to iden-
tify the positive aspects of their experience on their
own. We also note that the expressive disclosure con-
dition did show a narrow advantage over the benefit-
finding condition on health outcomes, suggesting that
full emotional processing may be particularly effec-
tive. Of course, emotional expression is likely to be
more beneficial for individuals with particular charac-
teristics in specific contexts, and these potential mod-
erators require further study.
We also implemented a reentry intervention in the
Moving Beyond Cancer randomized, controlled trial
described above. This is a multisite trial that was de-
signed to promote realistic expectancies and ap-
proach-oriented coping for women in the breast can-
cer reentry transition. The three arms involved
combinations of written material, a peer-modeling
video, and brief, structured psychoeducational ses-
sions, which included identification of a target con-
cern, development of an approach-oriented action
plan for addressing the concern, and implementation
and evaluation of the plan. The objective is not only to
address the target concern but also to promote ap-
proach-oriented planning for other concerns encoun-
tered in the reentry transition. Findings from this trial
and another reentry trial are now available.
46,47
Summary and Directions for Research
To summarize, most individuals who face cancer report
positive global adjustment at reentry, although treat-
ment completion and the ensuing months are likely to
constitute an island of disruption, with effects in multi-
ple life domains. Contributors to positive adjustment
during this phase are beginning to be identified, and
promising interventions are being developed. However,
we have far to go in understanding the reentry transition.
Although clinical and qualitative writings provide a rich
description of the problems of the reentry phase, little
empirical work is available. Longitudinal research docu-
menting the experience of reentry is needed, with as-
sessment of cancer-specific outcomes and of positive
indicators of adjustment as well as pathology. It also
should be noted that the reentry transition may be very
different for individuals with early-stage disease versus
those with poorer prognoses, for whom the end of treat-
ment often is demarcated less clearly and the transition
to survivorship is less certain.
Theoretically driven research to identify protec-
tive and risk factors for adjustment in multiple do-
mains is essential as data accumulate to characterize
the nature of the reentry transition. Translation of this
work into randomized, controlled trials of interven-
tions to promote reentry adjustment in diverse groups
of cancer patients and their loved ones also is needed.
The findings that personal and contextual factors in-
fluence cancer-related adjustment suggest that such
factors may moderate the effects of psychosocial in-
terventions on outcomes
48
and that interventions may
be targeted most productively to those at highest risk
for poor adjustment. Finally, evaluation of the links
between aspects of the reentry experience and long-
term health outcomes is vital. Such research may es-
tablish the reentry phase as a pivotal transition that
sets the stage for adaptive long-term survivorship.
REFERENCES
1. Stanton AL, Danoff-Burg S, Sworowski LA, et al. Random-
ized, controlled trial of written emotional expression and
benefit finding in breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2002;
20:4160 4168.
2. Stanton AL, Danoff-Burg S. Emotional expression, expres-
sive writing, and cancer. In: Lepore S, Smyth J, editors. The
writing cure: theory and research on the expressive writing
paradigm. Washington, DC: American Psychological Associ-
ation, 2002:31–51.
3. Cassileth BR, Lusk EJ, Strouse TB, et al. Psychosocial status
in chronic illness: a comparative analysis of six diagnostic
groups. N Engl J Med. 1984;311:506 –511.
4. Ganz PA, Rowland JH, Desmond KA, Meyerowitz BE, Wyatt
GE. Life after breast cancer: understanding women’s health-
related quality of life and sexual functioning. J Clin Oncol.
1998;16:501–514.
5. Morris T, Greer HS, White P. Psychological and social ad-
justment to mastectomy: a two-year follow-up study. Can-
cer. 1977;40:2381–2387.
2612 CANCER Supplement December 1, 2005 / Volume 104 / Number 11
6. Polinsky ML. Functional status of long-term breast cancer
survivors: demonstrating chronicity. Health Soc Work. 1994;
19:165–173.
7. Zabora JR, BrintzenhofeSzoc K, Curbow B, Hooker C, Pi-
antadosi S. The prevalence of psychological distress by can-
cer site. Psycho-Oncology. 2001;10:19 –28.
8. Andersen BL, Anderson B, DeProsse C. Controlled prospec-
tive longitudinal study of women with cancer: II. Psycholog-
ical outcomes. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1989;57:692– 697.
9. Auchincloss SS. After treatment. Psychosocial issues in gy-
necologic cancer survivorship. Cancer. 1995;76(10 Suppl):
2117–2124.
10. Mullan F. Re-entry: the educational needs of the cancer
survivor. Health Educ Q. 1984;10(Suppl):88 –94.
11. Mullan F. Seasons of survival: reflections of a physician with
cancer. N Engl J Med. 1985;313:270 –273.
12. McKinley ED. Under Toad days: surviving the uncertainty of
cancer recurrence. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133:479 480.
13. Schnipper HH. Life after breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;
19:3581–3584.
14. Hoffman RS. The psycho-oncologist in a multidisciplinary
breast treatment center. In: Cooper CL, editor. Stress and
breast cancer. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 1988:171–
193.
15. Tross S, Holland JC. Psychological sequelae in cancer survi-
vors. In: Holland JC, Rowland JH, editors. Handbook of
psychooncology: psychological care of the patient with can-
cer. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989:101–116.
16. Arnold EM. The cessation of cancer treatment as a crisis. Soc
Work Health Care. 1999;29:21–38.
17. Beisecker A, Cook MR, Ashworth J, et al. Side effects of
adjuvant chemotherapy: perceptions of node-negative
breast cancer patients. Psycho-Oncology. 1997;6:85–93.
18. Breaden K. Cancer and beyond: the question of survivor-
ship. J Adv Nurs. 1997;26:978 –984.
19. Maher EL. Anomic aspects of recovery from cancer. Soc Sci
Med. 1982;16:907–912.
20. Sears SR, Stanton AL, Danoff-Burg S. The Yellow Brick Road
and the Emerald City: benefit finding, positive reappraisal
coping and posttraumatic growth in women with early-stage
breast cancer. Health Psychol. 2003;22:487– 497.
21. Ward SE, Viergutz G, Tormey D, DeMuth D, Paulen A. Pa-
tients’ reactions to completion of adjuvant breast cancer
therapy. JAMA. 1992;262:1191–1195.
22. Green B, Rowland JH, Krupnick JL, et al. Prevalence of
post-traumatic stress disorder in women with breast cancer.
Psychosomatics. 1998;39:102–111.
23. McQuellon RP, Russell GB, Rambo TD, et al. Quality of life
and psychological distress of bone marrow transplant recip-
ients: the ‘time trajectory’ to recovery over the first year.
Bone Marrow Transplant. 1998;21:477– 486.
24. Nayfield SG, Ganz PA, Moinpour CM, Cella DF, Hailey BJ.
Report from a National Cancer Institute (USA) workshop on
quality of life assessment in cancer clinical trials. Qual Life
Res. 1992;1:203–210.
25. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York:
WH Freeman, 1997.
26. Carver CS, Scheier MF. On the self-regulation of behavior.
New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
27. Rotter JB. Social learning and clinical psychology. New York:
Prentice-Hall, 1954.
28. Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New
York: Springer, 1984.
29. Moos RH, Schaefer JA. Coping resources and processes:
current concepts and measures. In: Goldberger L, Breznitz
S, editors. Handbook of stress: theoretical and clinical as-
pects. 2nd ed. New York: The Free Press (Division of Mac-
millan), 1993:234 –257.
30. Kunkel EJS, Bakker JR, Myers RE, Oyesanmi O, Gomella LG.
Biopsychosocial aspects of prostate cancer. Psychosomatics.
2000;41:85–94.
31. Litwin MS, Hays RD, Fink A, et al. Quality-of-life outcomes
in men treated for localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1995;
273:129–135.
32. Talcott JA, Rieker P, Propert KJ, et al. Patient-reported im-
potence and incontinence after nerve-sparing radical pros-
tatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89:1117–1123.
33. Luker KA, Beaver K, Leinster SJ, Owens RG. Information
needs and sources of information for women with breast
cancer: a follow-up study. J Adv Nurs. 1996;23:487–495.
34. Spencer SM, Carver CS, Price AA, Kornblith AB. Psycholog-
ical adaptation to cancer. In: Holland JC, editor. Psycho-
oncology. London: Oxford University Press, 1998:211–254.
35. Girgis A, Boyes A, Sanson-Fisher RW, Burrows S. Perceived
needs of women diagnosed with breast cancer: rural versus
urban location. Aust NZ J Public Health. 2000;24:166–173.
36. Stanton AL, Danoff-Burg S, Cameron CL, et al. Emotionally
expressive coping predicts psychological and physical ad-
justment to breast cancer. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000;68:
875–882.
37. Snyder CR, Harris C, Anderson JR, et al. The will and the
ways: development and validation of an individual-differ-
ences measure of hope. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991;60:570–585.
38. Vickberg SM. The Concerns About Recurrence Scale (CARS):
a systematic measure of women’s fears about the possibility
of breast cancer recurrence. Ann Behav Med. 2003;25:16 –24.
39. Cella D, Davis K, Breitbart W, Curt G. Cancer-related fatigue:
prevalence of proposed diagnostic criteria in a United States
sample of cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:3385–3391.
40. Ganz PA, Desmond KA, Belin TR, Meyerowitz BE, Rowland
JH. Predictors of sexual health in women after a breast
cancer diagnosis. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:2371–2380.
41. Goodwin PJ, Ennis M, Pritchard KI, Trudeau M, Hood N.
Risk of menopause during the first year after breast cancer
diagnosis. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:2365–2370.
42. Partridge AH, Burstein HJ, Winer EP. Side effects of chemo-
therapy and combined chemohormonal therapy in women
with early-stage breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr.
2001;30:135–142.
43. Stanton AL, Snider PR. Coping with a breast cancer diagno-
sis: a prospective study. Health Psychol. 1993;12:16 –23.
44. Holland JC, Lewis S. The human side of cancer: living with
hope, coping with uncertainty. New York: Harper Collins,
2000.
45. Rittenberg CN. Positive thinking: an unfair burden for can-
cer patients? Support Care Cancer. 1995;3:37–39.
46. Stanton AL, Ganz PA, Kwan L, et al. Outcomes from the
Moving Beyond Cancer psychoeducational, randomized,
controlled trial with breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol
2005;23:6009 6018.
47. Scheier MF, Helgeson VS, Schulz R, et al. Interventions to
enhance physical and psychological functioning among
younger women who are ending nonhormonal adjuvant
treatment for early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;
23:4298 4311.
48. Helgeson VS, Cohen S, Schulz R, Yasko J. Group support
interventions for women with breast cancer: who benefits
from what? Health Psychol. 2000;19:107–114.
Promoting Posttreatment Adjustment/Stanton et al. 2613
    • "As an initial step, we created The Group Experiences Questionnaire [54] to reflect common experiences of cancer support groups by modifying scale structure and items generated initially by Lieberman [6], and modified by Roberts [55] for non-cancer groups. Our subscales reflect the clinical areas important to cancer patients and conform to some targeted areas for clinical intervention in cancer survivorship [56,57]: Expressing true feelings, discussing sexual concerns, developing a new attitude, establishing supportive contact, and accessing information and advice. We modified a self-report scale (developed for non-cancer groups [6]) by altering wording and adding items to reflect common dimensions of cancer support groups as a beginning step in scale development. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: In cancer support groups, choice of therapy model, leadership style, and format can impact patients' experiences and outcomes. Methodologies that illustrate the complexity of patients' group experiences might aid in choosing group style, or testing therapeutic mechanisms. We used this naturalistic study as a beginning step to explore methods for comparing cancer group contexts by first modifying a group-experience survey to be cancer-specific (Group Experience Questionnaire (GEQ)). Hypothesizing that therapist-led (TL) would differ from non-therapist-led (NTL), we explored the GEQ's multiple dimensions. A total of 292 patients attending three types of groups completed it: 2 TL groups differing in therapy style ((1) Supportive-Expressive (SET); (2) The Wellness Community (TWC/CSC)); (3) a NTL group. Participants rated the importance of "Expressing True Feelings" and "Discussing Sexual Concerns" higher in TL than NTL groups and "Discussing Sexual Concerns" higher in SET than other groups. They rated "Developing a New Attitude" higher in TWC/CSC compared to NTL. In addition, we depict the constellation of group qualities using radar-charts to assist visualization. These charts facilitate a quick look at a therapy model's strengths and weaknesses. Using a measure like the GEQ and this visualization technique could enable health-service decision making about choice of therapy model to offer.
    Article · Aug 2016
    • "A number of hypotheses have been proposed to explain these results (Hungerbuehler, et al., 2011; Weiss, 2004a). Women, who are more sensitive to stress (Stanton, et al., 2005), are more likely to experience thoughts, images, and feelings that cause them distress, but this in turn would trigger PTG (Kashdan & Kane, 2011). The results could also be explained by the fact that in terms of personal relationships and intimacy, women guide men, with men being more likely to have an intimate relationship with their wife, whereas she will also have intimate relationships with other women (Weiss, 2004a). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Serious and life-threatening illnesses like cancer produce stress symptoms in patients. However, the disease also has an impact on significant others in the patient’s life. This is now recognized in the literature, and alongside research on survivors’ growth from adversity, increasing attention is being paid to growth among significant others. This chapter adds to this body of work by reviewing the evidence regarding the transmission of growth in the patient to his or her significant others. The review suggests that growth in significant others is reported as being either vicarious or secondary. Couple factors such as gender or dyadic role seem to be relevant predictors of posttraumatic growth among spouses of cancer patients. The chapter concludes by discussing a possible rationale for this phenomenon.
    Full-text · Chapter · Jan 2016 · Quality of Life Research
    • "An additional finding was a main effect of goal flexibility on QoL during the follow-up period, indicating that those who used more actual goal adjustment strategies between 7 and 18 months post-diagnosis, reported higher QoL 18 months post-diagnosis. It has been suggested that in the period following treatment, dealing with the emotional consequences of cancer becomes more central to patients [33]. They need to come to terms with possible long-term effects of the illness, but also with the Table 3Hierarchical regression analyses predicting well-being 18 months post-diagnosis (Time 3) controlling for age (step 1) and entering goal disturbance (step 2), goal disengagement, and goal reengagement (step 3) 7 months post-diagnosis (Time 2) and no. of goal adjustment strategies (step 4) between 7 and 18 months postdiagnosis (Period 2). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Purpose: To investigate the impact of personal goal disturbance after cancer diagnosis on well-being over time, and a possible moderating role of goal adjustment tendencies and actual goal adjustment strategies. Methods: Participants (n = 186) were interviewed three times: within a month, 7 months (treatment period), and 18 months (follow-up period) after being diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Participants were asked to freely mention three to ten personal goals. Goal disturbance was assessed by the patients' ratings of the amount of hindrance experienced in goal achievement. Goal adjustment tendencies were assessed using the Goal Disengagement and Re-engagement Scale and actual goal adjustment (i.e. goal flexibility) by the number of goal adjustment strategies used. Outcome measures were overall quality of life and emotional functioning, assessed with the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30. Results: Hierarchical regression analyses showed that goal disturbance predicted well-being over both the treatment and the follow-up period. Additionally, the negative effect of goal disturbance on well-being was less for patients who scored higher on goal disengagement and not significant for patients who were more flexible in their use of actual goal adjustment strategies. Conclusions: The present study is the first to test the theoretical assumption that goal adjustment is beneficial after goal disturbance. Whereas these findings need to be confirmed in future research, the possibly beneficial role of goal disengagement and actual goal adjustment strategies can be used for psychological interventions.
    Full-text · Article · Oct 2015
Show more

  • undefined · undefined
  • undefined · undefined
  • undefined · undefined