OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explain bodily pain using the Sprangers and Schwartz theoretical model (1999) on quality of life (QL) and response shift in its entirety. Response shift refers to the phenomenon that the meaning of a person's self-evaluation changes over time. In this model, response shift mediates effects of changes in health status (catalysts), stable characteristics of the person (antecedents), and coping mechanisms (mechanisms) on QL. METHODS: Cancer patients (202) were assessed prior to and 3 months following surgery. Measures were for catalysts: type of operation and possibility of tumor resection; for antecedents: age, duration of pain, optimism, and rigidity; for mechanisms: post-traumatic growth, social comparisons, social support, denial, and acceptance; and for QL: bodily pain; for response shift: the pretest-minus-thentest bodily pain score, further referred to as recalibration response shift. Structural equation modeling and sequential regression analyses were used. RESULTS: The final model reached close fit (RMSEA = 0.03; 90% CI = 0.000-0.071; χ2 (18) = 21.13; p = 0.27). Significant effects were found for catalysts on mechanisms, antecedents on mechanisms, mechanisms on response shift, and response shift on bodily pain. Four extra model effects had to be permitted. Using sequential regression analysis, recalibration response shift added 4.4% to the total amount of 29.8% explained variance of bodily pain. CONCLUSIONS: Many effects as hypothesized by the model were found. Recalibration response shift had a unique albeit small contribution to the explanation of bodily pain.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explain bodily pain using the Sprangers and Schwartz theoretical model (1999) on quality of life (QL) and response shift in its entirety. Response shift refers to the phenomenon that the meaning of a person's self-evaluation changes over time. In this model, response shift mediates effects of changes in health status (catalysts), stable characteristics of the person (antecedents), and coping mechanisms (mechanisms) on QL. METHODS:Cancerpatients (202) were assessed prior to and 3 months following surgery. Measures were for catalysts: type of operation and possibility of tumor resection; for antecedents: age, duration of pain, optimism, and rigidity; for mechanisms: post-traumatic growth, social comparisons, social support, denial, and acceptance; and for QL: bodily pain; for response shift: the pretest-minus-thentest bodily pain score, further referred to as recalibration response shift. Structural equation modeling and sequential regression analyses were used. RESULTS: The final model reached close fit (RMSEA = 0.03; 90% CI = 0.000-0.071; χ2 (18) = 21.13; p = 0.27). Significant effects were found for catalysts on mechanisms, antecedents on mechanisms, mechanisms on response shift, and response shift on bodily pain. Four extra model effects had to be permitted. Using sequential regression analysis, recalibration response shift added 4.4% to the total amount of 29.8% explained variance of bodily pain. CONCLUSIONS: Many effects as hypothesized by the model were found. Recalibration response shift had a unique albeit small contribution to the explanation of bodily pain.
Authors: Margaret F Bevans; Sandra A Mitchell; John A Barrett; Michael R Bishop; Richard Childs; Daniel Fowler; Michael Krumlauf; Patricia Prince; Nonniekaye Shelburne; Leslie Wehrlen; Li Yang Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2013-12-17 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Alexander Kretschmer; Tobias Grimm; Alexander Buchner; Markus Grabbert; Friedrich Jokisch; Birte-Swantje Schneevoigt; Maria Apfelbeck; Gerald Schulz; Christian G Stief; Alexander Karl Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-12-23 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Salome Adam; Daniela Doege; Lena Koch-Gallenkamp; Melissa S Y Thong; Heike Bertram; Andrea Eberle; Bernd Holleczek; Ron Pritzkuleit; Mechthild Waldeyer-Sauerland; Annika Waldmann; Sylke Ruth Zeissig; Lina Jansen; Sabine Rohrmann; Hermann Brenner; Volker Arndt Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Erin L Merz; Vanessa L Malcarne; Scott C Roesch; Deepthi K Nair; Gloria Salazar; Shervin Assassi; Maureen D Mayes Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Lisa M Lix; Eric K H Chan; Richard Sawatzky; Tolulope T Sajobi; Juxin Liu; Wilma Hopman; Nancy Mayo Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-11-20 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: E J Bantema-Joppe; G H de Bock; M Woltman-van Iersel; D M Busz; A V Ranchor; J A Langendijk; J H Maduro; E R van den Heuvel Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2015-01-20 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Gabriela Ilie; Jillian Bradfield; Louise Moodie; Tarek Lawen; Alzena Ilie; Zeina Lawen; Chloe Blackman; Ryan Gainer; Robert D H Rutledge Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2019-08-20 Impact factor: 6.244