| Literature DB >> 21085978 |
A K H Aarstad1, K Lode, J P Larsen, E Bru, H J Aarstad.
Abstract
To be treated for cancer must be a frightening experience. Yet quality of life (QoL) of successfully treated cancer patients seems to be relatively similar in comparison with QoL of a general population, with psychological coping partly responsible for this finding. When measuring choice of coping, the nature of coping score levels constituting appropriate scores, and whether score levels rely on the context of the disease has not been settled. We have studied the COPE coping responses as related to disease in successfully treated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patient groups (general and laryngectomized), as well as compared to multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. The COPE response patterns have also been compared to the Beck depression inventory (BDI) scores. Age and gender of patients were not directly associated with choice of coping. Within the problem-focused coping indexes, the coping index "active coping" was reported to be most utilized among HNSCC patients, whereas "coping by suppression" and "coping by social support" were most utilized among MS patients. Emotional-focused coping was most prevalent among HNSCC patients and lowest among the MS patients. Level of avoidance coping was similar between the groups. The coping of the general HNSCC patients differed most from the MS patients. An association was shown between increased coping efforts and lowered mood. In particular, avoidance coping was associated with lowered mood. These associations were stronger among the MS patients than HNSCC patients. Drinking to cope was most prevalent among the laryngectomized group, and was correlated with BDI scores in all groups. Furthermore, adequate coping seems to be to limit avoidance coping and promote coping by acceptance. The response pattern of the COPE inventory seems to be valid among HNSCC and MS patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 21085978 PMCID: PMC3087083 DOI: 10.1007/s00405-010-1417-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol ISSN: 0937-4477 Impact factor: 2.503
The aims of the present investigation
| Aim no. | To study |
|---|---|
| 1 | What COPE score levels constitute an adequate score, and to what extent a score level relies on context |
| 2 | What extent gender and age of patients influence COPE scores |
| 3 | The importance of cancer patient (sub)sites, or whether cancer or MS, as to choice of coping |
| 4 | The concept of “healthy” coping |
| 5 | What indexes a short form of COPE questionnaire should minimally include when studying psychological coping |
| 6 | The association between depression and choice of coping as measured by the COPE inventory |
The TNM stages of the head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients
| Node stage | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| Tumor stage | |||||
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | |
| 1 | 37 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 44 |
| 2 | 18 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 26 |
| 3 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| 4 | 13 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 17 |
| Total | 73 | 10 | 12 | 1 | 96 |
Cronbach α of the determined coping indexes
| HNSCC | Laryngectomized | MS | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Active | 0.52 | 0.54 | 0.50 |
| Planning | 0.73 | 0.72 | 0.75 |
| Suppression of competing activity | 0.73 | 0.64 | 0.71 |
| Restraint | 0.55 | 0.62 | 0.62 |
| Social support of instrumental reasons | 0.73 | 0.80 | 0.73 |
| Social support of emotional reasons | 0.73 | 0.78 | 0.82 |
| Positive reinterpretation | 0.67 | 0.63 | 0.77 |
| Acceptance | 0.63 | 0.66 | 0.86 |
| Focusing on and venting of emotions | 0.75 | 0.74 | 0.83 |
| Denial | 0.69 | 0.73 | 0.76 |
| Behavioral disengagement | 0.74 | 0.73 | 0.74 |
| Mental disengagement | 0.50 | 0.47 | 0.39 |
| Drinking to cope | 0.81 | 0.92 | 0.98 |
| Coping by humor | 0.87 | 0.88 | 0.91 |
| Coping by religion | 0.89 | 0.90 | 0.95 |
HNSCC (General) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients, Laryngectomized laryngectomized patients, MS multiple sclerosis patients
Mean ± SEM scores of coping indexes within the included groups
| HNSCC | Laryngectomized | MS | ANOVA | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SEM | Mean | SEM | Mean | SEM | Nonea | Gender/agea | |
| Active | 64 | 2.2 | 57 | 2.6 | 56 | 2.0 | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Planning | 52 | 2.7 | 45 | 2.7 | 53 | 2.5 | 0.101 | 0.188 |
| Suppression of competing activity | 35 | 2.5 | 36 | 2.5 | 42 | 2.4 | 0.110 | 0.313 |
| Restraint | 46 | 2.5 | 46 | 2.7 | 47 | 2.2 | 0.837 | 0.868 |
| Social support of instrumental reasons | 35 | 2.5 | 35 | 2.6 | 46 | 2.6 | 0.005 | 0.805 |
| Social support of emotional reasons | 49 | 2.6 | 36 | 2.3 | 43 | 2.6 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Positive reinterpretation | 77 | 2.0 | 64 | 2.6 | 60 | 2.4 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Acceptance | 91 | 1.3 | 81 | 2.4 | 70 | 2.6 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Focusing on and venting of emotions | 37 | 2.4 | 38 | 2.3 | 36 | 2.6 | 0.798 | 0.519 |
| Denial | 22 | 2.4 | 17 | 2.2 | 20 | 2.3 | 0.414 | 0.177 |
| Behavioral disengagement | 19 | 2.1 | 19 | 2.1 | 27 | 2.1 | 0.040 | 0.099 |
| Mental disengagement | 37 | 2.5 | 32 | 2.3 | 39 | 2.1 | 0.212 | 0.081 |
| Drinking to cope | 7 | 1.4 | 21 | 2.7 | 4 | 1.5 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Coping by humor | 44 | 3.3 | 37 | 3.1 | 27 | 2.9 | 0.023 | 0.096 |
| Coping by religion | 46 | 3.4 | 32 | 3.2 | 20 | 3.1 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
HNSCC (General) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients, Laryngectomized laryngectomized patients, MS multiple sclerosis patients
aEmployed co-variates
Fig. 1Given score of COPE questionnaire general indexes of groups scoring different by ANOVA when adjusted by gender and age if the patients. P levels by post hoc analyses following ANOVA analyses. HNSCC head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, MS multiple Sclerosis
Fig. 2Given score of COPE questionnaire scores of drinking to cope and coping by religion. P levels by post hoc analyses following ANOVA analyses. HNSCC head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, MS multiple sclerosis
Correlation analyses of COPE indexes correlated with the Beck Depression Index within each patient group
| Coping index | HNSCC | Laryngectomized | MS | Significant diff. correlations between groups |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active | 0.23* | 0.04 | 0.13 | |
| Planning | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.24* | |
| Suppression | 0.26* | 0.12 | 0.38*** | Lar versus MS |
| Restraint | 0.15 | 0.04 | 0.36*** | Lar versus MS |
| Social support of instrumental reasons | −0.03 | −0.02 | 0.01 | |
| Social support of emotional reasons | 0.06 | 0.04 | −0.07 | |
| Positive reinterpretation/growth | −0.11 | −0.18 | −0.20 | |
| Acceptance | −0.14 | −0.16 | −0.22* | |
| Focusing on/venting of emotions | 0.04 | 0.33*** | 0.36*** | HNSCC versus Lar HNSCC versus MS |
| Denial | 0.18 | 0.02 | 0.28** | |
| Behavioral disengagement | 0.41*** | 0.49*** | 0.61*** | HNSCC versus MS |
| Mental disengagement | 0.26* | 0.29** | 0.44*** | |
| Drinking to cope | 0.29** | 0.46*** | 0.39*** | |
| Coping by humor | 0.22* | −0.21* | 0.10 | |
| Coping by religion | 0.18 | −0.05 | 0.06 |
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
HNSCC (General) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients, Laryngectomized (Lar) laryngectomized patients, MS multiple sclerosis patients