Psycho‐Oncology最新文献

Objective: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is common in breast cancer survivors (BCS). This study examined the mediating role of illness representations in the relationships between FCR and physical symptoms, social constraint and self-care self-efficacy.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 385 women with breast cancer completed a series of questionnaires including the FCR Inventory, Social Constraints Scale-15, Cancer Survivors Self-Efficacy Scale, Illness Perception Questionnaire-Revised and European Organization for Research and Treatment Quality of Life Questionnaire-Breast Cancer. Structural equation modelling method was conduct by using a bootstrapping method.

Results: Physical symptoms (β = 0.272, p < 0.01), social constraints (β = 0.130, p < 0.01), self-efficacy (β = -0.233, p < 0.01) and illness representation (β = 0.261, p < 0.01) have direct effects on FCR. The indirect effects of physical symptoms (β = 0.10, p < 0.01), social constraints (β = 0.076, p < 0.01) and self-efficacy (β = -0.025, p < 0.05) on FCR were partially mediated by illness representations.

Conclusions: In this study, the effects of physical symptoms, social constraints and self-efficacy on FCR were found to be mediated by illness representation. Reducing the impact of negative illness representations on FCR by reducing physical symptoms, increasing self-efficacy, and promoting open disclosure of cancer-related concerns may be effective in reducing FCR in BCS.

Objective: A brief, valid, and comprehensive measure of mindfulness is needed for cancer populations. This study examined the factor structure, internal consistency, construct validity, and measurement invariance of the 10-item Cognitive Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R) in patients with cancer.

Methods: Patients with breast, gastrointestinal, lung, or prostate cancer (N = 404, 50% stage IV cancer, 51% women) were recruited from academic and public clinics in Indianapolis, IN. Patients completed the CAMS-R and other psychological measures at one time point. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to examine the dimensionality of the CAMS-R. Internal consistency and construct validity were also assessed. Measurement invariance was examined for gender, cancer type, and cancer stage.

Results: CFA showed that the original CAMS-R structure with four first-order factors (attention, present focus, awareness, and acceptance) and one second-order factor (mindfulness) had a reasonable fit (RMSEA = 0.09, CFI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.04). Internal consistency was excellent (α = 0.90). The CAMS-R total score showed significant positive associations with several subscales of a widely used mindfulness questionnaire and self-compassion (rs = 0.61-0.66) and significant negative associations with anxiety, depressive symptoms, rumination, psychological inflexibility, and avoidant coping (rs = -0.35-0.58). Measurement invariance testing indicated that the CAMS-R was invariant across populations of varying genders, cancer types, and stages.

Conclusions: Findings provide preliminary support for using the CAMS-R in cancer populations. Future research should assess the responsiveness of the CAMS-R to intervention.

Objective: Colorectal cancer survivors (CRCS) often experience high levels of distress. The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the effect of blended cognitive behavior therapy (bCBT) on distress severity among distressed CRCS.

Methods: CRCS (targeted N = 160) with high distress (Distress Thermometer ≥5) between 6 months and 5 years post cancer treatment were randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) to receive bCBT, (14 weeks including five face-to-face, and three telephone sessions and access to interactive website), or care as usual (CAU). Participants completed questionnaires at baseline (T0), four (T1) and 7 months later (T2). Intervention participants completed bCBT between T0 and T1. The primary outcome analyzed in the intention-to-treat population was distress severity (Brief Symptom Inventory; BSI-18) immediately post-intervention (T1).

Results: 84 participants were randomized to bCBT (n = 41) or CAU (n = 43). In intention-to-treat analysis, the intervention significantly reduced distress immediately post-intervention (-3.86 points, 95% CI -7.00 to -0.73) and at 7 months post-randomization (-3.88 points, 95% CI -6.95 to -0.80) for intervention compared to CAU. Among secondary outcomes, at both time points, depression symptoms, anxiety symptoms, cancer worry, and cancer-specific distress were significantly lower in the intervention arm. Self-efficacy scores were significantly higher. Overall treatment satisfaction was high (7.4/10, N = 36) and 94% of participants would recommend the intervention to other colorectal cancer patients.

Conclusions: The blended COloRectal canceR distrEss reduCTion intervention seems an efficacious psychological intervention to reduce distress severity in distressed CRCS. Yet uncertainty remains about effectiveness because fewer participants than targeted were included in this trial.

Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register NTR6025.

Objectives: Lung cancer screening (LCS) programs are being designed and implemented globally. Early data suggests that the psychosocial impacts of LCS are influenced by program factors, but evidence synthesis is needed. This systematic review aimed to elucidate the impact of service-level factors on psychosocial outcomes to inform optimal LCS program design and future implementation.

Methods: Four databases were searched from inception to July 2023. Inclusion criteria were full-text articles published in English that reported an association between any program factors and psychosocial outcomes experienced during LCS. Study quality was appraised, and findings were synthesised narratively.

Results: Thirty-two articles were included; 29 studies were assessed at high or moderate risk of bias. Study designs were RCT (n = 3), pre-post (n = 6), cross-sectional (n = 12), mixed-methods (n = 1), and qualitative (n = 10) studies, and conducted primarily in the USA (n = 25). Findings suggested that targeted interventions can improve smoking-related or decisional psychosocial outcomes (e.g., smoking cessation interventions increase readiness/motivation to quit) but impacts of interventions on other psychological outcomes were varied. There was limited evidence reporting association between service delivery components and psychological outcomes, and results suggested moderation by individual aspects (e.g., expectation of results, baseline anxiety). Opportunities for discussion were key in reducing psychological harm.

Conclusions: Certain program factors are reportedly associated with psychosocial impacts of LCS, but study heterogeneity and quality necessitate more real-world studies. Future work should examine (a) implementation of targeted interventions and high-value discussion during LCS, and (b) optimal methods and timing of risk and result communication, to improve psychosocial outcomes while reducing time burden for clinicians.