| Literature DB >> 36232004 |
Ilaria Durosini1, Stefano Triberti1,2, Lucrezia Savioni1,2, Valeria Sebri1,2, Gabriella Pravettoni1,2.
Abstract
Breast cancer survivors have to deal with notable challenges even after successful treatment, such as body image issues, depression and anxiety, the stress related to changes in lifestyle, and the continual challenges inherent to health management. The literature suggests that emotional abilities, such as emotional intelligence, emotion management, mood repair, and coping play a fundamental role in such challenges. We performed a systematic review to systematize the evidence available on the role of emotional abilities in quality of life and health management in breast cancer survivors. The search was performed on three scientific databases (Pubmed, Scopus, and PsycINFO) and, after applying exclusion criteria, yielded 33 studies, mainly of a cross-sectional nature. The results clearly support the hypothesis that emotional abilities play multiple important roles in breast cancer survivors' quality of life. Specifically, the review highlighted that coping/emotional management plays multiple roles in breast cancer survivors' well-being and health management, affecting vitality and general adjustment to cancer positivity and promoting benefit findings related to the cancer experience; however, rare negative results exist in the literature. This review highlights the relevance of emotional abilities to promoting quality of life in breast cancer survivors. Future review efforts may explore other breast cancer survivors' emotional abilities, aiming at assessing available instruments and proposing tailored psychological interventions.Entities:
Keywords: breast cancer; cancer survivorship; coping; emotional intelligence; emotions; mood repair; quality of life
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36232004 PMCID: PMC9566755 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191912704
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1PRISMA diagram.
Risk-of-bias analysis of the selected studies.
| Random Sequence Generation | Allocation Concealment | Blinding of Participants and Personnel | Blinding of Outcome Data | Incomplete Outcome Data | Selective Reporting | Other Bias | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guil et al., 2020 [ | + | - | - | ? | ? | + | - |
| Karademas et al., 2007 [ | - | - | - | ? | ? | + | - |
| Wen et al., 2017 [ | - | - | ? | ? | - | - | - |
| Low et al., 2006 [ | - | - | - | ? | - | - | - |
| Bellizzi et al., 2006 [ | + | + | + | ? | + | + | - |
| Cheng et al., 2019 [ | - | - | - | ? | - | + | - |
| Boehmer et al., 2013 [ | - | - | - | ? | - | - | - |
| Lu et al., 2018 [ | + | + | + | ? | - | - | - |
| Gall, 2000 [ | - | - | - | ? | - | - | - |
| Mishel et al., 2005 [ | + | + | - | ? | - | + | - |
| Johns et al., 2020 [ | + | ? | - | ? | ? | + | - |
| Chu et al., 2019 [ | - | - | - | ? | - | + | - |
| Carpenter et al., 2014 [ | + | ? | - | ? | - | + | - |
| Beatty et al., 2010 [ | + | ? | - | ? | - | + | + |
| Levkovich et al., 2018 [ | - | - | - | ? | - | + | - |
| McGinty et al., 2015 [ | + | - | ? | ? | - | - | - |
| Karademas et al., 2007 [ | - | - | - | ? | - | - | - |
| Fischer et al., 2013 [ | - | - | - | ? | - | - | + |
| Achimas-Cadariu et al., 2015 [ | - | + | - | ? | - | - | - |
| Charlier et al., 2012 [ | - | - | - | ? | - | - | - |
| Cohee et al., 2021 [ | - | - | - | ? | ? | + | - |
| Perez-Tejada et al., 2019 [ | - | - | - | ? | ? | + | - |
| Radin et al., 2021 [ | - | - | - | ? | - | - | - |
| Kolokotroni et al., 2018 [ | - | - | - | ? | ? | + | - |
| Lan et al., 2018 [ | - | - | - | ? | - | + | - |
| Romeo et al., 2019 [ | - | - | - | ? | ? | + | - |
| Lu et al., 2018 [ | - | - | - | ? | - | - | + |
| Ridner et al., 2020 [ | + | - | - | ? | ? | + | - |
| Lelorain et al., 2011 [ | - | - | ? | ? | - | - | - |
| Lyons et al., 2015 [ | ? | ? | - | ? | - | - | + |
| Wonghongkul, et al., 2006 [ | - | - | - | ? | ? | + | - |
| Raque-Bogdan, 2016 [ | - | - | - | ? | - | - | - |
| Arambasic et al., 2018 [ | - | - | - | ? | - | - | - |
Note. “+” = low risk of bias; “?” = unclear risk of bias; “-” = high-risk of bias.
Synthesis of studies included in the review according to study design, sample, aim, outcomes of interest. The “Quality of life area” column refers to the dimension(s) of quality of life that are affected by the study, taking into consideration the outcome variables.
| Author | Study Design | Sample | Study Aim | Outcomes of Interest | Quality of Life Area |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guil et al., 2020 [ | Cross sectional research | 167 breast cancer survivors | Correlational study to find the specific processes through which the dimensions of Perceived Emotional Intelligence (PEI) (Emotional Attention, Emotional Clarity, and Mood Repair) can act as a risk or protective factor in the development of resilience | Breast cancer survival and PEI predicted 28% of the variance of resilience. The direct effects showed that emotional clarity and mood repair increased resilience levels; emotional attention played a role in vulnerability, decreasing mood repair, and resilience | Emotional |
| Karademas et al., 2007 [ | Cross-sectional study | 92 breast cancer survivors who had undergone mastectomy | Path analysis on the predictive relationships between self-efficacy, coping, stress, time since diagnosis and since mastectomy, and optimism | Illness-related stress exerted influence on optimism through coping, whereas self-efficacy exerted influence both directly and through coping. Both main coping strategies predicted optimism (positive reappraisal positively and behavioral avoidance negatively) | Emotional |
| Wen et al., 2017 [ | Cross sectional study | 148 breast cancer survivors | To investigate the extent to which coping strategies, psychosocial distress (perceived stress and depression), and social support were associated with benefit finding | Active coping and depressive symptoms accounted for 20% of the variance in benefit finding | Emotional, Cognitive |
| Low et al., 2006 [ | Longitudinal design | 558 breast cancer survivors | - To examine emotional approach coping (EAC) strategies and other coping processes as predictors of adjustment over time in women who had recently completed medical treatment for breast cancer | - EAC and other approach-oriented strategies are associated with better general and cancer-specific adjustment, whereas avoidance-oriented coping (i.e., denial) is associated with adverse psychosocial outcome | Emotional, Social, Spiritual |
| Bellizzi et al., 2006 [ | Cross sectional study | 224 breast cancer survivors | To examine contextual, disease-related, and intraindividual predictors of posttraumatic growth | Age at diagnosis, marital status, employment, education, perceived intensity of disease, and active coping accounted for 34%, 35%, and 28% of the variance in growth in relationships with others, new possibilities, and appreciation for life. | Social, Emotional |
| Cheng et al., 2019 [ | A three-wave longitudinal study | 248 breast cancer survivors | Participants completed a package of psychological inventories to evaluate cancer coping style, psychological distress, anxiety and depression, and quality of life | Two cancer-coping classes were identified through LPA, namely adaptive and maladaptive cancer coping. | Emotional |
| Boehmer et al., 2013 [ | Cross sectional study | 180 lesbian and bisexual breast cancer | To determine differences between lesbian and bisexual cancer survivors to examine whether sexual minority–specific issues contribute to these survivors′ adjustment | Preoccupation coping was associated with worse mental health, more social support, more fatalism, or fighting spirit coping and better future perspective was associated with lower depression. Hopelessness coping was associated with more depression symptoms. Fighting spirit coping and better future perspective related to less anxiety | Emotional |
| Lu et al., 2018 [ | Randomized controlled trial with three arms | 136 breast cancer survivors | To examine the impact of expressive writing on quality of life | The enhanced self-regulation condition had a large and statistically significant effect, and the self-regulation condition had a small effect on quality-of-life improvement compared with the cancer-fact group | Emotional, Social, Cognitive, Physical |
| Gall, 2000 [ | Cross sectional study | 52 breast cancer survivors | To explore the role of religious | Various experiences of relationship with God (e.g., presence) were related to more positive appraisals of the current cancer situation as well as to the greater use of the nonreligious coping behavior of focusing on the positive. The same coping behavior, for example religious avoidance, could be related to both positive and negative appraisals of the cancer situation. Religious resources, but not nonreligious resources predicted emotional and spiritual well-being for long-term breast cancer survivors | Emotional, Spiritual |
| Mishel et al., 2005 [ | Randomized controlled trial | 509 breast cancer survivors | To test the efficacy of a “uncertainty management” intervention, focused on augmenting the usage of active vs. passive coping strategies | Training in active coping skills resulted in improvements in cognitive reframing, cancer knowledge, patient–health care provider communication, and coping skills | Cognitive, Social |
| Johns et al., 2020 [ | Evidence-based interventions | 91 breast cancer survivors | Intervention to examine the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of group-based acceptance commitment therapy (ACT, focused on coping strategies) for fear of recurrence and quality of life, compared with survivor education and usual care | All interventions improve fear of recurrence and quality of life but ACT obtained better results in the same constructs than both survivor education and usual care | Emotional |
| Chu et al., 2019 [ | Experimental study | 96 breast cancer survivors | Participants were involved in expressive writing, three groups: writing about stress coping and finding benefits vs. emotional disclosure vs. objective cancer facts | Coping and cancer facts writing groups had fewer PTSD symptoms than emotional disclosure group | Emotional |
| Carpenter et al., 2014 [ | Randomized waitlist-controlled trial | 132 breast cancer survivors | To develop an online cognitive behavioral stress management intervention for early-stage breast cancer survivors and evaluate its effectiveness | Higher self-efficacy for coping with cancer and for regulating negative mood and lower levels of cancer-related post-traumatic symptoms were found in the experimental group | Emotional |
| Beatty et al., 2010 [ | Randomized controlled trial; intervention and control group tested at baseline and at 3 and 6 months after | 40 breast cancer survivors | To test the effect of an intervention based on a self-help workbook for improving adjustment for breast cancer survivors | Control participants used less venting coping than workbook ones. Reliable change indices showed a trend towards a protective effect across all coping measures for workbook participants | Emotional |
| Levkovich et al., 2018 [ | Cross sectional study | 170 breast cancer survivors, stages I–III, 1–12 months post-chemotherapy | - To examine the nature of the symptom cluster of emotional distress, fatigue, and cognitive difficulties. (BCS); | Emotional control was negatively associated with distress and meaning-focused coping was negatively associated with distress and fatigue | Emotional, Physical |
| McGinty et al., 2015 [ | Longitudinal study | 161 breast cancer survivors | To assess and predict fear of cancer recurrence during a critical event in cancer survivorship | Cognitive Behavioral Model variables, including risk, severity, coping self-efficacy beliefs, and reassurance-seeking behaviors, were significant predictors of lower fear of recurrence | Emotional, Cognitive |
| Karademas et al., 2007 [ | Cross sectional study | 103 Greek breast cancer survivors and 100 comparison group | To investigate the association of cancer-related stress and coping with psychological health (and especially with those aspects of psychological health exhibiting a significant difference between breast cancer survivors and healthy controls) | Cancer-related stress and coping explained an additional 26% of the somatic symptom variance, 25% of the anxiety variance, 24% of the social dysfunction variance, as well as 29% of the depression variance. They also explained an additional 32% of the overall GHQ score variance. Depressive symptoms were positively predicted by stress and behavioural avoidance, and negatively by the use of social support. Behavioural avoidance was positively predicted by stress | Social, Emotional |
| Fischer et al., 2013 [ | Cross sectional and longitudinal study | 57 breast cancer survivors | - To analyze to what degree illness perceptions and coping are associated with psychological | - Distress was positively related to beliefs about the consequences of breast cancer, chronic timeline, cyclical timeline, and emotional representations. An inverse association was observed between distress and illness coherence | Emotional, Cognitive |
| Achimas-Cadariu et al., 2015 [ | Cross sectional study | 51 breast cancer survivors and 59 control group | - To compare multidimensional constructs of quality of life, emotional distress, anxiety, and cognitive coping status of women with premalignant and malignant breast disease during | Statistically significant negative effect of emotional distress and of the catastrophizing coping strategy on quality of life | Emotional, Social, Cognitive, Physical |
| Charlier et al., 2012 [ | Cross sectional study | 440 breast cancer survivors | To cluster cancer survivors according to their symptoms and psychosocial variables with the aim to identify survivors with a homogenous psychosocial profile. To look for differences in physical activity level and supportive care needs for physical activity among the resulting clusters | - Women in cluster 1 (low distress-active approach) were using more problem-oriented coping | Cognitive, Emotional |
| Cohee et al., 2021 [ | Cross sectional study | 1127 breast cancer survivors who were 3 to 8 years | Multiple mediation analyses were conducted to determine whether avoidant coping mediated the relationship between each distress variable and each well-being variable | Avoidant coping significantly mediated the relationship between each well-being variable and each distress indicator. Avoidant coping mediated 19–54% of the effects of the contributing factors on the distress variables | Emotional |
| Perez-Tejada et al., 2019 [ | Cross-sectional descriptive design | 54 breast cancer survivors | Pilot study to determine whether different coping strategies are associated with differences in psychological distress, cortisol, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-a) levels in breast cancer survivors | Passive coping strategies were associated with higher psychological distress, cortisol, and TNF-a levels | Physical, Emotional |
| Radin et al., 2021 [ | Cross sectional study | 171 breast cancer survivors | To examine correlations between executive functions (EF), coping, and depressive symptoms in breast cancer survivors. To longitudinally test the hypothesis that coping mediates the relationship between EF and depressive symptoms | EFs were correlated with avoidant coping. In longitudinal analyses, use of the avoidant strategy behavioral disengagement at 1-year mediated the association between objective and subjective EFs at 6 months and depressive symptoms at 2 years | Emotional |
| Kolokotroni et al., 2018 [ | Cross sectional study | 125 breast cancer survivors | Investigated the mediating psychological pathways through which social constraints | Disengagement-oriented coping | Emotional, Cognitive, Social |
| Lan et al., 2018 [ | Cross-sectional study | 124 breast cancer survivors | Survey to assess the relationship between illness perception, coping style, functional exercise adherence, and demographic and illness-related characteristics | Dysfunctional coping strategies were negatively associated with treatment control | Physical (adherence to treatment and exercise) |
| Romeo et al., 2019 [ | Cross sectional study | 123 breast cancer survivors | To analyze both positive and negative outcomes after cancer diagnosis, through an extensive analysis of different potentially relating factors, which can be deeply associated with the patients′ ability to manage the disease | “Fatalism” coping strategy and perceived social support were two significant predictors of post traumatic growth. The “Helpless-Hopeless” and “Anxious Preoccupation” coping strategies, as well as an insecure attachment style, were significant predictors of depression, while the “Anxious Preoccupation” coping strategy and an insecure attachment style were significant predictors of anxiety | Emotional |
| Lu et al., 2018 [ | Cross sectional study | 103 breast cancer survivors | To examine the longitudinal effects of expressive suppression, ambivalence over emotional expression (i.e., inner conflict over emotional expression), and cognitive reappraisal on quality of life | Ambivalence over emotional expression was associated with lower follow-up quality of life above and beyond the effect of expressive suppression. Cognitive reappraisal moderated the relations between expressive suppression and follow-up quality of life | Emotional, Social, Cognitive, Physical |
| Ridner et al., 2020 [ | Experimental study | 160 breast cancer survivors with lymphedema | To compare a web-multimedia intervention that included information on coping strategies with an informational pamphlet to improve well-being | No significant differences between the groups; the role of coping strategies is unclear as they were one of multiple contents of the web-based intervention | / |
| Lelorain et al., 2011 [ | Cross sectional study | 298 breast cancer survivors and 132 comparison group | To explore this issue by comparing quality-of-life prediction between cancer survivors and a comparison group | -Substance abuse and active coping lead to decreased quality of life | Emotional, Social, Cognitive, Physical |
| Lyons et al., 2015 [ | Two experimental studies | 31 breast cancer survivors | To develop and pilot test an intervention to optimize functional | Reductions in self-blame were associated with reductions in depression. The change scores for the other three coping styles were not correlated with changes in quality of life, depression, or anxiety | Emotional |
| Wonghongkul, et al., 2006 [ | Cross sectional study | 150 breast cancer survivors | -To explore the levels of uncertainty in illness, types of stress appraisal, types of coping, and levels of quality of life in breast | Distancing coping predict quality of life; seeking social support reduces stress among breast cancer survivors | Social, Emotional |
| Raque-Bogdan, 2016 [ | Cross sectional study | 275 breast cancer survivors | To test a model of well-being recovery. Structural equation modeling was used to examine relationships between affect, loneliness, self-compassion, self-efficacy for coping with cancer, well-being, and life satisfaction | Coping efficacy was a consistent mediator in the path sequences from positive affect, negative affect, and loneliness to emotional well-being and life satisfaction | Emotional |
| Arambasic et al., 2018 [ | Cross sectional research | 82 breast cancer survivors | To extend the association between attachment styles and psychological adjustment to the context of long-term breast cancer survivors and to determine whether lower self-compassion underlies this association | Higher attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance were significantly and positively associated with stress and perceived negative impact of cancer. Significant indirect effects of attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance (on both stress and perceived negative impact of cancer) through lower self-compassion | Emotional |
List of the tools used to assess Quality of Life or related variables and related ranges.
| Author | Quality of Life or Related Variables′ Tools |
|---|---|
| Guil et al., 2020 [ | - Wagnild and Young Resilience Scale (range = 25–175; Non-resilience (25–74); Low resilience (75–100); Average resilience (101–125); High resilience (126–150), and Very high resilience (151–175) |
| Karademas et al., 2007 [ | - Personal Optimism Scale from the Questionnaire for the Assessment of Personal Optimism and Social Optimism-Extended, range = 8–32 with higher scores indicating higher optimism |
| Wen et al., 2017 [ | - The Perceived Stress Scale (range = 0–56, with higher scores indicating greater overall stress) |
| Low et al., 2006 [ | - Vitality subscale from the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form (SF–36). range = 0–100 with higher scores indicating lower vitality issues |
| Bellizzi et al., 2006 [ | - Post-traumatic Growth Inventory (range = 0–105, with high scores indicating |
| Cheng et al., 2019 [ | - Distress Thermometer |
| Boehmer et al., 2013 [ | The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life Questionnaire-Breast Cancer (EORTC QoL-BR23) (range = 0–100; a high score for functional scales and for Global Health Status/QoL represent better functioning ability or HRQoL, whereas a high score for symptom scales and single items represents significant symptomatology) |
| Lu et al., 2018 [ | - Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy general scale (FACT-G), range = 0–108 with higher scores indicating higher quality of life |
| Gall, 2000 [ | - Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWBS) (ranges = 20–120, with a higher score representing greater spiritual well-being) |
| Mishel et al., 2005 [ | - Self-control schedule (two subscales used both with range = 10–100 with higher scores indicating higher cognitive reframing and problems solving, respectively) |
| Johns et al., 2020 [ | - Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global Health Scale—eight items were used, two subscales both range = 4–20 with higher scores indicating higher physical and mental health, respectively |
| Chu et al., 2019 [ | - Symptom Scale—Self report (range = 0–51, with high score indicating more severe symptoms) |
| Carpenter et al., 2014 [ | - Cancer Behavior Inventory v2.0 (range = 33–297, higher score indicates more confidence the patient had in his or her ability to perform a specific behavior related to coping with cancer now or some time in the near future’) |
| Beatty et al., 2010 [ | - Posttraumatic Stress Scale-Self Report (range = 0–51, with higher scores indicating better functioning |
| Levkovich et al., 2018 [ | - Subjective Stress Scale (range = 0–10, with higher score indicating higher stress) |
| McGinty et al., 2015 [ | - Consequences subscale of the Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire (range = 6–30 with higher score meaning more serious expected consequences of the illness) |
| Karademas et al., 2007 [ | - Personal Optimism Scale from the Questionnaire for the Assessment of Personal Optimism and Social Optimism-Extended, range = 8–32 with higher scores indicating higher optimism |
| Fischer et al., 2013 [ | - The 25-item Hopkins Symptom Check List (HSCL-25), range 1–4 with higher scores indicating higher distress related to one’s illness and a cut-off of 1.75 indicating clinically relevant distress (in the reviewed paper, the authors used sum of the items and a cut-off of 39 for “elevated distress”) |
| Achimas-Cadariu et al., 2015 [ | - Beck Depression Inventory-Second Edition (BDI-II) (range = 0–63, with higher score indicating severe depression) |
| Charlier et al., 2012 [ | - The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life Questionnaire-Breast Cancer (EORTC QoL-BR23) (range = 0–100; a high score for functional scales and for Global Health Status/QoL represent better functioning ability or HRQoL, whereas a high score for symptom scales and single items represents significant symptomatology) |
| Cohee et al., 2021 [ | - Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression scale (range = 0–60, with higher scores indicating more serious symptoms. A cut-off score of 16 suggests that individuals are |
| Perez-Tejada et al., 2019 [ | - Hospital Anxiety and Depression |
| Radin et al., 2021 [ | - Higher level cognitive complaints subscale of the Patient’s Assessment of Own Functioning Inventory (PAOFI), range = 1–6 with higher scores indicating more complaints related to executive functioning |
| Kolokotroni et al., 2018 [ | -.Psychosocial Adjustment to Illness Scale–Self-Report, a total score was computed with -range = 0–100 with higher scores indicating higher psychosocial adjustment |
| Lan et al., 2018 [ | - Functional Exercise Adherence Scale (FEAS) for Postoperative Breast Cancer Survivors composed by three subscales: “adherence to physical exercise”, range = 9–45; “adherence to seeking advice”, range = 4–20; “adherence to following precautions”, range 5–25, all with higher scores indicating higher adherence |
| Romeo et al., 2019 [ | - Post-Traumatic Growth Inventory (range = 0–105, with high scores indicating |
| Lu et al., 2018 [ | - Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-G) |
| Ridner et al., 2020 [ | Lymphedema Symptom Intensity and Distress Scale–Arm (LSIDS-A) (range 1–100), in which individual weighted values are subsequently average to reach an overall index of symptom burden |
| Lelorain et al., 2011 [ | - Visual analogue scale (VASs) |
| Lyons et al., 2015 [ | - The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer + Arm Morbidity (FACT-B+4), (range = 0–164, with higher scores indicating better quality of life). |
| Wonghongkul, et al., 2006 [ | - Stress Appraisal Index composed by three scales all with range 0–10 with higher scores indicating higher appraisal of stress in terms of harm, threat, and challenge, respectively |
| Raque-Bogdan, 2016 [ | - The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), range of both scales = 10–50 with higher scores indicating more positive affect for the first scale and more negative affect for the second scale |
| Arambasic et al., 2018 [ | - 20-item Negative Impact Summary scale of the Impact of Cancer scale Version 2 (negative IOC), range = 1–5 with higher scores indicating a more negative |