Sandra Pérez1, Andrea Conchado2, Yolanda Andreu3, María José Galdón3, Etzel Cardeña4, Elena Ibáñez3, Estrella Durá3. 1. Department of Personality, Assessment and Therapeutic Interventions, Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Mártir, Valencia, Spain. mariasandra.perez@ucv.es. 2. Department of Statistics, Applied Operations Research and Quality, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain. 3. Department of Personality, Assessment and Psychological Treatment, Universidad de Valencia, Valencia, Spain. 4. CERCAP, Department of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the longitudinal trajectories of acute stress reactions over the course of diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up assessments in a group of non-metastatic breast cancer patients during five different moments of the illness process, and to identify psychological predictors of the trajectories. METHODS: The sample was formed by 102 non-metastatic breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. Latent growth mixture models (LGMM) were used to identify latent classes, and we used multinomial logistic regression in a conditional model to examine predictors to differentiate between trajectories. RESULTS: We identified four different groups according to their trajectories: (1) a resilient group, (44.5 %); (2) a mild acute stress group, (40.6 %); (3) a delayed-recovery group (11.9 %); and (4) a chronic acute stress group (2.9 %). Moreover, anxious preoccupation showed the strongest significant effects in predicting each class, whereas cognitive avoidance and type C personality had moderate effects for participants in the mild acute stress group. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the majority of breast cancer patients in our study were resilient, with only a small percentage showing chronic acute stress. Because coping strategies, specifically anxious preoccupation, and not more stable variables played a main role in the prediction of acute stress trajectories, future preventive interventions should center in promoting more adaptive coping strategies in breast cancer patients.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the longitudinal trajectories of acute stress reactions over the course of diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up assessments in a group of non-metastatic breast cancerpatients during five different moments of the illness process, and to identify psychological predictors of the trajectories. METHODS: The sample was formed by 102 non-metastatic breast cancerpatients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. Latent growth mixture models (LGMM) were used to identify latent classes, and we used multinomial logistic regression in a conditional model to examine predictors to differentiate between trajectories. RESULTS: We identified four different groups according to their trajectories: (1) a resilient group, (44.5 %); (2) a mild acute stress group, (40.6 %); (3) a delayed-recovery group (11.9 %); and (4) a chronic acute stress group (2.9 %). Moreover, anxious preoccupation showed the strongest significant effects in predicting each class, whereas cognitive avoidance and type C personality had moderate effects for participants in the mild acute stress group. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the majority of breast cancerpatients in our study were resilient, with only a small percentage showing chronic acute stress. Because coping strategies, specifically anxious preoccupation, and not more stable variables played a main role in the prediction of acute stress trajectories, future preventive interventions should center in promoting more adaptive coping strategies in breast cancerpatients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Acute stress symptoms; Breast cancer; Coping; Spanish women; Trajectories; Type C personality
Authors: Richard A Bryant; Angela Nickerson; Mark Creamer; Meaghan O'Donnell; David Forbes; Isaac Galatzer-Levy; Alexander C McFarlane; Derrick Silove Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2015-02-05 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Wendy W T Lam; George A Bonanno; Anthony D Mancini; Samuel Ho; Miranda Chan; Wai Ka Hung; Amy Or; Richard Fielding Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Estrella Durá-Ferrandis; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Jonathan Clapp; George Luta; LeighAnne Faul; Gretchen Kimmick; Harvey Jay Cohen; Rachel L Yung; Arti Hurria Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Danielle B Tometich; Kelly A Hyland; Hatem Soliman; Heather S L Jim; Laura Oswald Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Rocío Guil; Paula Ruiz-González; Lucía Morales-Sánchez; Rocío Gómez-Molinero; Paloma Gil-Olarte Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Alexander Morzycki; Joseph Corkum; Nadim Joukhadar; Osama Samargandi; Jason G Williams; Simon G Frank Journal: Plast Surg (Oakv) Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 0.947