BACKGROUND: Lower perceived control over hot flashes has been linked to fewer coping strategies, more catastrophizing, and greater hot flash severity and distress in midlife women, yet this important concept has not yet been studied in breast cancer survivors. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore perceived control over hot flashes and hot flashes in breast cancer survivors compared with midlife women without cancer. METHODS:Ninety-nine survivors and 138 midlife women completed questionnaires and a prospective, electronic hot flash diary. All data were collected at a baseline assessment before randomization in a behavioral intervention study. RESULTS: Both groups had moderate perceived control over hot flashes. Control was not significantly related to hot flash frequency but was significantly related to hot flash severity, bother, and interference in both groups. A significantly stronger association between control and hot flash interference was found for survivors than for midlife women. Survivors using hot flash treatments perceived less control than did survivors not using hot flash treatments, whereas the opposite was true in midlife women. CONCLUSIONS: Findings extend our knowledge of perceived control over hot flashes in both survivors and midlife women. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Findings emphasize the importance of continued menopausal symptom assessment and management, support the importance of continuing nursing care even for survivors who are already using hot flash treatment, and suggest that nursing interventions aimed at improving perceived control over hot flashes may be more helpful for survivors than for midlife women.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Lower perceived control over hot flashes has been linked to fewer coping strategies, more catastrophizing, and greater hot flash severity and distress in midlife women, yet this important concept has not yet been studied in breast cancer survivors. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore perceived control over hot flashes and hot flashes in breast cancer survivors compared with midlife women without cancer. METHODS: Ninety-nine survivors and 138 midlife women completed questionnaires and a prospective, electronic hot flash diary. All data were collected at a baseline assessment before randomization in a behavioral intervention study. RESULTS: Both groups had moderate perceived control over hot flashes. Control was not significantly related to hot flash frequency but was significantly related to hot flash severity, bother, and interference in both groups. A significantly stronger association between control and hot flash interference was found for survivors than for midlife women. Survivors using hot flash treatments perceived less control than did survivors not using hot flash treatments, whereas the opposite was true in midlife women. CONCLUSIONS: Findings extend our knowledge of perceived control over hot flashes in both survivors and midlife women. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Findings emphasize the importance of continued menopausal symptom assessment and management, support the importance of continuing nursing care even for survivors who are already using hot flash treatment, and suggest that nursing interventions aimed at improving perceived control over hot flashes may be more helpful for survivors than for midlife women.
Authors: Janet S Carpenter; Anna Maria Storniolo; Shelley Johns; Patrick O Monahan; Faouzi Azzouz; Julie L Elam; Cynthia S Johnson; Richard C Shelton Journal: Oncologist Date: 2007-01
Authors: Clarisa R Gracia; Mary D Sammel; Ellen W Freeman; Hui Lin; Elizabeth Langan; Shiv Kapoor; Deborah B Nelson Journal: Menopause Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Jane A Cauley; John Robbins; Zhao Chen; Steven R Cummings; Rebecca D Jackson; Andrea Z LaCroix; Meryl LeBoff; Cora E Lewis; Joan McGowan; Joan Neuner; Mary Pettinger; Marcia L Stefanick; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Nelson B Watts Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-10-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Janet S Carpenter; Julie L Elam; Sheila H Ridner; Pam H Carney; Gloria J Cherry; Heather L Cucullu Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Sally A Shumaker; Claudine Legault; Stephen R Rapp; Leon Thal; Robert B Wallace; Judith K Ockene; Susan L Hendrix; Beverly N Jones; Annlouise R Assaf; Rebecca D Jackson; Jane Morley Kotchen; Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller; Jean Wactawski-Wende Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-05-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Janet S Carpenter; Jennifer G Neal; Judith Payne; Gretchen Kimmick; Anna Maria Storniolo Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Kavita D Chandwani; Charles E Heckler; Supriya G Mohile; Karen M Mustian; Michelle Janelsins; Luke J Peppone; Peter Bushunow; Patrick J Flynn; Gary R Morrow Journal: Explore (NY) Date: 2014-04-18 Impact factor: 1.775
Authors: Julie L Otte; Todd C Skaar; Jingwei Wu; Menggang Yu; Kristin Ryker; Debra S Burns; Janet S Carpenter Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-02-10 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Alla Sikorskii; Charles W Given; Azfar-E-Alam Siddiqi; Victoria Champion; Ruth McCorkle; Sandra L Spoelstra; Barbara A Given Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2014-04-15 Impact factor: 3.894