Psycho‐Oncology最新文献

Objective: (i) To systematically identify constructs and outcome measures used to assess the emotional and mood impact of false positive breast screening test results; (ii) to appraise the reporting clarity and rationale for selecting constructs and outcome measures.

Methods: Databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were systematically searched from 1970. Studies using standardised and non-standardised outcome measures to evaluate the emotion or mood impact of false positive breast screening test results were eligible. A 15-item coding scheme was devised to appraise articles on clarity and rationale for selected constructs and measures.

Results: Forty-seven articles were identified. The most investigated constructs were general anxiety and depression and disease-specific anxiety and worry. Twenty-two standardised general outcome questionnaire measures and three standardised disease-specific outcome questionnaire measures were identified. Twenty articles used non-standardised scales/items. Reporting of constructs and outcome measures was generally clear, but rationales for their selection were lacking. Anxiety was typically justified, but justification for depression was almost always absent. Practical and psychometric justification for selecting outcome measures was lacking, and theoretical rationale was absent.

Conclusions: Heterogeneity in constructs and measures, coupled with unclear rationale for these, impedes a thorough understanding of why there are emotional effects of false positive screening test results. This may explain the repeated practice of investigating less relevant outcomes such as depression. There is need to develop a consensual conceptual model of and standardised approach to measuring emotional impact from cancer screening test results, to address heterogeneity and other known issues of interpreting an inconsistent evidence base.

Objective: To broaden the currently limited reach of genomic innovations, research is needed to understand how psychosocial and cultural factors influence reactions to genetic testing in diverse subgroups. Cancer fatalism is important in cancer prevention and deserves theoretical and empirical attention in the context of genomics and behavior change.

Methods: The current study employed data from a randomized controlled trial (N = 593) offering skin cancer genetic testing (using the melanocortin-1 receptor [MC1R] gene) in primary care in Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. We examined interrelations of cancer fatalism with demographics, general health beliefs, perceived risk, perceived control, sun protection and skin screening behaviors and cancer worry in the skin cancer context stratified across Hispanic versus non-Hispanic ethnicity, and examined cancer fatalism as a moderator of intervention effects on study primary outcomes, including 3-month sun protection, cancer worry and perceived risk.

Results: Cancer fatalism was significantly related to the perception of control over skin cancer risk behaviors (ps ≤ 0.01) and demographics (ethnicity, education, health literacy; ps < 0.05), but not consistently related to general health beliefs or risk perception. Cancer fatalism did not moderate intervention effects on primary outcomes, except those with higher cancer fatalism randomized to intervention had higher levels of 3-month cancer worry (p = 0.019).

Conclusions: These findings will guide future work considering the role of cancer fatalism in use of genomic technologies in the general population. This work anticipates strategies required to address cancer fatalism as translational genomics becomes more commonly available to diverse general population subgroups.

Objective: Psychological distress is prevalent in couples facing breast cancer. Couples often deal with breast cancer as a unit instead of as individuals. Couple's dyadic coping is important for their adjustment to breast cancer; however, little is known about how couple's coping congruence influences their distress. This study examined how common dyadic coping (CDC) and coping congruence impact psychological distress in couples facing breast cancer.

Methods: Baseline data were analyzed from 343 women with recently diagnosed early-stage breast cancer and their partners who participated in a randomized clinical trial. Psychological distress was indicated by depressed mood and state anxiety. Common dyadic coping was measured by a self-report scale. Coping congruence was assessed by the absolute difference between a woman's and her partner's CDC scores.

Results: Higher CDC scores were associated with lower psychological distress in both women and partners. In the CDC subscales, women who suffered less scored higher on open communication, sharing a positive outlook, and lower on avoidance coping. Partners who suffered less scored higher on open communication, sharing a positive outlook, spending time talking, and lower on avoidance coping. Greater congruence in CDC was associated with lower psychological distress in women and their partners. Congruence in sharing a positive outlook benefited both members of the dyad; congruence in avoidance coping significantly benefited patients; congruence in open communication significantly benefited partners.

Conclusions: CDC and its congruence in specific areas have potential benefit to couple's psychological distress when facing breast cancer. Health care providers could consider enhancing couple's CDC and coping congruence to improve their adjustment.