| Literature DB >> 35142911 |
Agata Poręba-Chabros1, Magdalena Kolańska-Stronka2, Piotr Mamcarz1, Izabela Mamcarz3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to provide support for the hypothesis that there was a correlation between the subjective appraisal of one's disease and the level of stress, as well as the hypothesis that coping styles may have a mediating role on the relationship between the perception of the disease and stress level in patients diagnosed with lung cancer.Entities:
Keywords: Cognitive appraisal of disease; Coping styles; Health behaviour; Lung cancer; Stress
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35142911 PMCID: PMC9046371 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-022-06880-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Support Care Cancer ISSN: 0941-4355 Impact factor: 3.359
Characteristics of the research group
| Variable | % | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male | 50 | 51.5 |
| Female | 47 | 48.5 | |
| Total | 97 | 100.0 | |
| Smoking tobacco | Yes | 48 | 49.5 |
| No | 49 | 50.5 | |
| Total | 97 | 100 | |
| Type of cancer | Non-small cell cancer | 81 | 83.5 |
| Small cell cancer | 16 | 16.5 | |
| Marital status | Single | 4 | 4.1 |
| Married | 68 | 70.1 | |
| Widower/widow | 19 | 19.6 | |
| Divorced | 6 | 6.2 | |
| Total | 97 | 100.0 | |
| Place of residence | Village | 38 | 39.2 |
| Small town | 18 | 18.6 | |
| Medium-sized city | 14 | 14.4 | |
| Big city | 28 | 26.8 | |
| Total | 96 | 99.0 | |
| Professional status | Active | 18 | 18.6 |
| On sick leave | 5 | 5.2 | |
| Retirement pension | 61 | 62.9 | |
| Disability pension | 11 | 11.3 | |
| Total | 95 | 97.9 | |
| Treatment used | Chemotherapy | 93 | 95.9 |
| Radiotherapy | 16 | 16.5 | |
| Surgical treatment | 9 | 9.3 | |
| Number of chemotherapy treatments | 1–3 | 36 | 39.6 |
| 4–7 | 46 | 47.4 | |
| 8 and more | 9 | 9.3 | |
| Total | 91 | 93.8 | |
| Time since diagnosis | 0–54 months | 23 | 27.8 |
| 55–68 months | 52 | 53.6 | |
| 69 and more months | 9 | 9.3 | |
Fig. 1Coping styles as the mediator on the relationship between the cognitive appraisal of the disease and stress level
Means, standard deviations and Pearson’s r correlations between variables for the whole sample
| Variable | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. DA: Threat | 14.76 | 7.33 | ||||||||||
| 2. DA: Benefit | 23.31 | 4.75 | 0.51** | |||||||||
| 3. DA: Loss | 21.56 | 6.75 | 0.69** | 0.55** | ||||||||
| 4. DA: Challenge | 12.74 | 3.64 | 0.39** | 0.50** | 0.43** | |||||||
| 5. DA: Harm | 24.33 | 6.14 | 0.54** | 0.39** | 0.65** | 0.32** | ||||||
| 6. DA: Value | 20.63 | 7.00 | 0.28** | 0.35** | 0.19 | 0.41** | 0.06 | |||||
| 7. DA: Significance | 8.62 | 3.58 | 0.66** | 0.24* | 0.45** | 0.33** | 0.40** | 0.20 | ||||
| 8.Stress level | 57.30 | 8.18 | − 0.56** | − 0.17 | − 0.45** | − 0.16 | − 0.48** | − 0.11 | − 0.32** | |||
| 9. TOS | 38.66 | 8.91 | 0.29** | 0.33** | 0.41** | 0.17 | 0.44** | − 0.05 | 0.35** | − 0.32** | ||
| 10. EOS | 44.89 | 6.00 | − 0.57** | − 0.34** | − 0.43** | − 0.31** | − 0.53** | − 0.20* | − 0.39** | 0.71** | − 0.44** | |
| 11. AS | 17.33 | 6.60 | 0.12 | − 0.08 | 0.12 | − 0.13 | 0.13 | − 0.12 | 0.26* | − 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.02 |
DA disease appraisal, TOS task-oriented style, EOS emotion-oriented style, AS avoidant style.
*p < 0.05.
**p < 0.01.
***p < 0.001.
Fig. 2The mediation model of the relationship between threat and stress level. Note. The figure presents the standardised coefficients; c′ direct effect X to Y; c direct effect X to Y with mediator in model; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
Fig. 3The mediation model of the relationship between loss and stress level. Note. The figure presents the standardised coefficients; c′ direct effect X to Y; c direct effect X to Y with mediator in model; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
Fig. 4The mediation model of the relationship between harm and stress level. Note. The figure presents the standardised coefficients; c′ direct effect X to Y; c direct effect X to Y with mediator in model; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
Fig. 5The mediation model of the relationship between significance and stress level. Note. The figure presents the standardised coefficients; c′ direct effect X to Y; c direct effect X to Y with mediator in model; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001