Margaret R Bauer1, Lauren N Harris1, Joshua F Wiley1, Catherine M Crespi2,3, Jennifer L Krull1, Karen L Weihs4,5, Annette L Stanton6,7,8. 1. Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Center for Cancer Prevention and Control Research, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Department of Psychiatry, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. 5. Cancer Prevention and Control Program University of Arizona Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. 6. Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. astanton@ucla.edu. 7. Center for Cancer Prevention and Control Research, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. astanton@ucla.edu. 8. Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. astanton@ucla.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies examine whether dispositional approach and avoidance coping and stressor-specific coping strategies differentially predict physical adjustment to cancer-related stress. PURPOSE: This study examines dispositional and situational avoidance and approach coping as unique predictors of the bother women experience from physical symptoms after breast cancer treatment, as well as whether situational coping mediates the prediction of bother from physical symptoms by dispositional coping. METHOD: Breast cancer patients (N = 460) diagnosed within the past 3 months completed self-report measures of dispositional coping at study entry and of situational coping and bother from physical symptoms every 6 weeks through 6 months. RESULTS: In multilevel structural equation modeling analyses, both dispositional and situational avoidance predict greater symptom bother. Dispositional, but not situational, approach predicts less symptom bother. Supporting mediation models, dispositional avoidance predicts more symptom bother indirectly through greater situational avoidance. Dispositional approach predicts less symptom bother through less situational avoidance. CONCLUSION: Psychosocial interventions to reduce cancer-related avoidance coping are warranted for cancer survivors who are high in dispositional avoidance and/or low in dispositional approach.
BACKGROUND: Few studies examine whether dispositional approach and avoidance coping and stressor-specific coping strategies differentially predict physical adjustment to cancer-related stress. PURPOSE: This study examines dispositional and situational avoidance and approach coping as unique predictors of the bother women experience from physical symptoms after breast cancer treatment, as well as whether situational coping mediates the prediction of bother from physical symptoms by dispositional coping. METHOD:Breast cancerpatients (N = 460) diagnosed within the past 3 months completed self-report measures of dispositional coping at study entry and of situational coping and bother from physical symptoms every 6 weeks through 6 months. RESULTS: In multilevel structural equation modeling analyses, both dispositional and situational avoidance predict greater symptom bother. Dispositional, but not situational, approach predicts less symptom bother. Supporting mediation models, dispositional avoidance predicts more symptom bother indirectly through greater situational avoidance. Dispositional approach predicts less symptom bother through less situational avoidance. CONCLUSION:Psychosocial interventions to reduce cancer-related avoidance coping are warranted for cancer survivors who are high in dispositional avoidance and/or low in dispositional approach.
Entities:
Keywords:
Approach; Avoidance; Breast cancer; Coping; Physical symptoms
Authors: Patricia A Ganz; Lorna Kwan; Annette L Stanton; Janice L Krupnick; Julia H Rowland; Beth E Meyerowitz; Julienne E Bower; Thomas R Belin Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-03-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Megan E Renna; M Rosie Shrout; Annelise A Madison; Catherine M Alfano; Stephen P Povoski; Adele M Lipari; Doreen M Agnese; William E Carson; Janice K Kiecolt-Glaser Journal: Psychoneuroendocrinology Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 4.905
Authors: Lauren N Harris; Margaret R Bauer; Joshua F Wiley; Constance Hammen; Jennifer L Krull; Catherine M Crespi; Karen L Weihs; Annette L Stanton Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2017-05-20
Authors: Larissa A McGarrity; Nicholas S Perry; Christina M Derbidge; Stephen K Trapp; Alexandra L Terrill; Timothy W Smith; Anna R Ibele; Justin J MacKenzie Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Karin Stinesen Kollberg; Joshua F Wiley; Kharah M Ross; Alexandra Jorge-Miller; Constance Hammen; Karen L Weihs; Annette L Stanton Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2019-03-20
Authors: Arielle Radin; Patricia A Ganz; Kathleen Van Dyk; Annette L Stanton; Julienne E Bower Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Jacqueline H J Kim; Emma E Bright; Timothy J Williamson; Jennifer L Krull; Karen L Weihs; Annette L Stanton Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2020-06-13