Catherine E Mosher1, Danielle B Tometich1, Adam Hirsh1, Kevin L Rand1, Shelley A Johns2,3, Marianne S Matthias2,3,4,5, Samantha D Outcalt2,3,4,6, Jonathan Bricker7,8, Bryan Schneider9, Lida Mina9, Anna Maria Storniolo9, Erin Newton9, Kathy Miller9. 1. Department of Psychology, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 2. Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 3. Center for Health Services Research, Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 4. VA HSR&D Center for Health Information and Communication, Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 5. Department of Communication Studies, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 6. Department of Psychiatry, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 7. Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. 8. Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 9. Indiana University School of Medicine, Indiana Cancer Pavilion, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined symptom-based subgroups of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients and the extent to which they differed across key constructs of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). METHODS: Eighty women with MBC completed self-report surveys assessing 10 common symptoms and several ACT variables (ie, activity engagement, psychological inflexibility, value obstruction, and value progress) during a single time point. RESULTS: A cluster analysis yielded 3 patient subgroups: low symptoms, low-moderate symptoms, and moderate-high symptoms. Relative to the subgroup with low symptoms, the other subgroups reported less activity engagement. In addition, compared with patients with low symptoms, the subgroup with moderate-high symptoms reported greater psychological inflexibility (ie, avoidance of unwanted internal experiences) and greater difficulty living consistently with their values. CONCLUSIONS: Women with MBC show heterogeneity in their symptom profiles, and those with higher symptom burden are more likely to disengage from valued activities and avoid unwanted experiences (eg, thoughts, feelings, and bodily sensations). Findings are largely consistent with the ACT model and provide strong justification for testing ACT to address symptom interference in MBC patients.
OBJECTIVE: This study examined symptom-based subgroups of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients and the extent to which they differed across key constructs of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). METHODS: Eighty women with MBC completed self-report surveys assessing 10 common symptoms and several ACT variables (ie, activity engagement, psychological inflexibility, value obstruction, and value progress) during a single time point. RESULTS: A cluster analysis yielded 3 patient subgroups: low symptoms, low-moderate symptoms, and moderate-high symptoms. Relative to the subgroup with low symptoms, the other subgroups reported less activity engagement. In addition, compared with patients with low symptoms, the subgroup with moderate-high symptoms reported greater psychological inflexibility (ie, avoidance of unwanted internal experiences) and greater difficulty living consistently with their values. CONCLUSIONS:Women with MBC show heterogeneity in their symptom profiles, and those with higher symptom burden are more likely to disengage from valued activities and avoid unwanted experiences (eg, thoughts, feelings, and bodily sensations). Findings are largely consistent with the ACT model and provide strong justification for testing ACT to address symptom interference in MBCpatients.
Authors: J S Carpenter; M A Andrykowski; M Cordova; L Cunningham; J Studts; P McGrath; D Kenady; D Sloan; R Munn Journal: Cancer Date: 1998-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Julie Loebach Wetherell; Niloofar Afari; Thomas Rutledge; John T Sorrell; Jill A Stoddard; Andrew J Petkus; Brittany C Solomon; David H Lehman; Lin Liu; Ariel J Lang; J Hampton Atkinson Journal: Pain Date: 2011-06-17 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Wendy W T Lam; Janice Tsang; Winnie Yeo; Joyce Suen; Wing Ming Ho; Tze Kok Yau; Inda Soong; Ka Yan Wong; Ava Kwong; Dacita Suen; Wing Kin Sze; Alice W Y Ng; Afaf Girgis; Richard Fielding Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-10-26 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: David W Kissane; Brenda Grabsch; Anthony Love; David M Clarke; Sidney Bloch; Graeme C Smith Journal: Aust N Z J Psychiatry Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 5.744
Authors: R K Portenoy; H T Thaler; A B Kornblith; J M Lepore; H Friedlander-Klar; E Kiyasu; K Sobel; N Coyle; N Kemeny; L Norton Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1994 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Nadine R Taghian; Cynthia L Miller; Lauren S Jammallo; Jean O'Toole; Melissa N Skolny Journal: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: George Baum; Karen Basen-Engquist; Maria C Swartz; Patricia A Parker; Cindy L Carmack Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-02-16 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Christopher M Callahan; Frederick W Unverzagt; Siu L Hui; Anthony J Perkins; Hugh C Hendrie Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Catherine E Mosher; Ellen Krueger; Adam T Hirsh; Kathy D Miller; Tarah J Ballinger; Anna Maria Storniolo; Bryan P Schneider; Erin V Newton; Victoria L Champion; Shelley A Johns Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Ashley B Lewson; Shelley A Johns; Ellen Krueger; Kelly Chinh; Kelley M Kidwell; Catherine E Mosher Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Nurul Izzah Shari; Nor Zuraida Zainal; Ng Chong Guan; Zuraida Ahmad Sabki; Nor Aziyan Yahaya Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 3.240