| Literature DB >> 21298449 |
Rama Krsna Rajandram1, Josef Jenewein, Colman McGrath, Roger Arthur Zwahlen.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to perform an evidence-based review on the quantitative data regarding coping processes related to posttraumatic growth in the field of oncology to facilitate understanding of posttraumatic growth in oral cavity cancer (OCC) patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21298449 PMCID: PMC3069319 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-011-1105-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Support Care Cancer ISSN: 0941-4355 Impact factor: 3.603
Fig. 1PRISMA diagram of records identification and selection
Findings from studies included in this review
| Author/C.P | T | M.A (y) | Assessment (months) | Coping process |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ho et al. 2010 (OC) | C | 60 | 6 PT | Hope α PTG ( |
| Optimism α PTG ( | ||||
| Marital support α PTG ( | ||||
| Lelorain et al. 2010 (BC) | C | 65.0 | 5 PD | Positive affectivity PTG (β = 0.39, |
| Active (β.16, | ||||
| Zwahlen et al. 2010 (H)a | C | Pt: 59.5 PR: 60.0 | 18 PT | Strong marital support α PTG ( |
| Scrignaro et al. 2010 (H) | L | 52.0 | T1: any time PD T2: 6 after T1 | Active coping, planning, and self distraction α |
| PTG ( | ||||
| Problem focused coping increased PTG ( | ||||
| Thombre et al. 2010 (H) | C | 55.7 | 6 PT | Meaning making α PTG (0.32, |
| Benefit finding α PTG (0.40, | ||||
| Thombre et al. 2010 (H) | C | 39.8 | 11.5 PD | Religious appraisal α PTG (β = 0.37, |
| Chan et al. 2010 (BC) | C | 48.4 | 15.6 PD | Positive attentional bias α PTG ( |
| Positive cancer related rumination α PTG ( | ||||
| Morris et al. 2010 (H) | C | 62.41 | 36 PD | Intrusive rumination α PTG |
| Rumination on benefits α PTG life purpose | ||||
| Rumination α PTG (covariance parameters were all significant for the three rumination types above, | ||||
| Bozo et al. 2009 (BC) | C | 46.3 | 2–276 PD | Dispositional optimism α PTG (β = 0.25, |
| Mols et al. 2009 (BC) | C | 62% between 50–69 | Not mentioned | Benefit finding α PTG (β = 0.46, |
| Karanchi et al. 2007 (BC) | C | 43.0 | 15.4 PT | Problem solving coping α PTG ( |
| Smith et al. 2008 (CC) | C | 51.0 | 120 PD | Spirituality α PTG (0.271, |
| Thornthon et al. 2006 (PC ) | L | 61.3 | 12 PT | Positive reframing coping α PTG ( |
| Schroevers et al. 2006 (H) | C | 51.8 | 45 PT | Active positive coping α PTG ( |
| Instrumental support α PTG (β = 0.38, | ||||
| Positive reframing α PTG (β = 0.21, | ||||
| Humor α PTG (β = 0.18, | ||||
| Bellizzi et al. 2006 (BC) | C | 60 | 12-48 PT | Adaptive coping α PTG (for the domains of relationship with others, new possibilities in life, appreciation of life) (β = 0.39, 0.44, 0.43, |
| Carboon et al. 2005 (H) | L | 43.4 | First assessment: 1.2 PD | Religious coping α PTG ( |
| Second assessment: 6.1 PD | ||||
| Widows et al. 2005 (BMT) | C | 47.6 | 24.1PT | Approach based positive reappraisal, problem solving coping α PTG ( |
| Manne et al. 2004 (BC)a | L | Pt: 49 PR: 51 | 4.5 PD | For patients: cancer rumination α PTG (3.36, |
| For partners: positive reappraisal α PTG (1.37, | ||||
| Intrusion α PTG ( | ||||
| Weiss et al. 2004 (BC)a | C | 54.2 | 38.7 PD | Marital support α PTG ( |
| Sears et al. 2003 (BC) | L | 51.6 | 28.5 PD | Positive reappraisal α PTG ( |
| Positive affectivity α PTG ( | ||||
| Cordova et al. 2001 (BC) | C | 54.7 | 23.6 PT | Cancer rumination α PTG ( |
C.P cancer population, PC prostate cancer, T type of study design, M.A mean age, Y years, OC oral cancer, H heterogeneous cancer group, BMT bone marrow transplant, PTG posttraumatic growth, C cross-sectional, α significantly associated with, L longitudinal, PT post-treatment, PD post-diagnosis, BC breast cancer, CC cervical Cancer
aStudies that also assessed the spouse/partners
Fig. 2This model shows the multidimensional concept of PTG being influenced by various coping processes at different stages of cancer disease. Therefore, potential interventions might be applied at different stages of the disease probably providing enhanced coping processes which facilitate the development of PTG