BACKGROUND: The pilot study used clinical trial methodology to differentiate the effects of imagery and support on coping, life attitudes, immune function, quality of life, and emotional well-being after breast cancer. METHODS:Women (N = 47) who completed treatment for primary breast cancer, excluding stage IV, were randomly assigned to standard care (n = 15) or six weekly support (n = 16) or imagery (n = 16) sessions. Self-report measures included Ways of Coping-Cancer, Life Attitude Profile, Quality of Life (FACT-B), Profile of Mood States, and Functional Support. Immune measures included natural killer cell activity, plasma neopterin, interferon-gamma, interleukins 1 alpha, 1 beta, and 2, and beta-endorphin levels. Differences between groups over time were tested using general linear models, adjusted for pretest score and covariates (age, stage, and months posttreatment). RESULTS: For all women, interferon-gamma increased, neopterin decreased, quality of life improved, and natural killer activity remained unchanged. Compared with standard care, both interventions improved coping skills (seeking support) and perceived social support, and tended to enhance meaning in life. Support boosted overall coping and death acceptance. When comparing imagery with support, imagery participants tended to have less stress, increased vigor, and improved functional and social quality of life. CONCLUSION: Although imagery reduced stress and improved quality of life, both imagery and support improved coping, attitudes, and perception of support. The clinical implications of these changes warrant further testing.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The pilot study used clinical trial methodology to differentiate the effects of imagery and support on coping, life attitudes, immune function, quality of life, and emotional well-being after breast cancer. METHODS:Women (N = 47) who completed treatment for primary breast cancer, excluding stage IV, were randomly assigned to standard care (n = 15) or six weekly support (n = 16) or imagery (n = 16) sessions. Self-report measures included Ways of Coping-Cancer, Life Attitude Profile, Quality of Life (FACT-B), Profile of Mood States, and Functional Support. Immune measures included natural killer cell activity, plasma neopterin, interferon-gamma, interleukins 1 alpha, 1 beta, and 2, and beta-endorphin levels. Differences between groups over time were tested using general linear models, adjusted for pretest score and covariates (age, stage, and months posttreatment). RESULTS: For all women, interferon-gamma increased, neopterin decreased, quality of life improved, and natural killer activity remained unchanged. Compared with standard care, both interventions improved coping skills (seeking support) and perceived social support, and tended to enhance meaning in life. Support boosted overall coping and death acceptance. When comparing imagery with support, imagery participants tended to have less stress, increased vigor, and improved functional and social quality of life. CONCLUSION: Although imagery reduced stress and improved quality of life, both imagery and support improved coping, attitudes, and perception of support. The clinical implications of these changes warrant further testing.
Authors: Anna María Nápoles; Carmen Ortíz; Jasmine Santoyo-Olsson; Anita L Stewart; Steven Gregorich; Howard E Lee; Ysabel Durón; Peggy McGuire; Judith Luce Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Heather Greenlee; Lynda G Balneaves; Linda E Carlson; Misha Cohen; Gary Deng; Dawn Hershman; Matthew Mumber; Jane Perlmutter; Dugald Seely; Ananda Sen; Suzanna M Zick; Debu Tripathy Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2014-11
Authors: Lemmy Schakel; Dieuwke S Veldhuijzen; Paige I Crompvoets; Jos A Bosch; Sheldon Cohen; Henriët van Middendorp; Simone A Joosten; Tom H M Ottenhoff; Leo G Visser; Andrea W M Evers Journal: Psychother Psychosom Date: 2019-08-06 Impact factor: 17.659
Authors: Elizabeth Ann Coleman; Julia A Goodwin; Sharon K Coon; Kathy Richards; Carol Enderlin; Robert Kennedy; Carol B Stewart; Paula McNatt; Kim Lockhart; Elias J Anaissie; Bart Barlogie Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 2011 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.592
Authors: Heather Greenlee; Melissa J DuPont-Reyes; Lynda G Balneaves; Linda E Carlson; Misha R Cohen; Gary Deng; Jillian A Johnson; Matthew Mumber; Dugald Seely; Suzanna M Zick; Lindsay M Boyce; Debu Tripathy Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Barbara L Andersen; William B Farrar; Deanna M Golden-Kreutz; Ronald Glaser; Charles F Emery; Timothy R Crespin; Charles L Shapiro; William E Carson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-09-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christina Lindemalm; Fariba Mozaffari; Aniruddha Choudhury; Helena Granstam-Björneklett; Mats Lekander; Bo Nilsson; Marja-Leena Ojutkangas; Anders Osterborg; Leif Bergkvist; Håkan Mellstedt Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2007-06-12 Impact factor: 3.603