4.6 Article

A non-randomized comparison of mindfulness-based stress reduction and healing arts programs for facilitating post-traumatic growth and spirituality in cancer outpatients

Journal

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
Volume 15, Issue 8, Pages 949-961

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-007-0280-5

Keywords

mindfulness-based stress reduction; meditation; creative therapy; post-traumatic growth; spirituality; cancer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Goals of work The aim of this study was to compare a mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program and a healing through the creative arts (HA) program on measures of post-traumatic growth (PTGI-R), spirituality (FACIT-Sp), stress (SOSI), and mood disturbance (POMS) in cancer patients. Materials and methods A sample of cancer outpatients (MBSR, n=60; HA, n=44) with a variety of diagnoses chose to attend either an 8-week MBSR program or a 6-week HA program and were assessed pre- and post-intervention. The majority of participants were female, married, and had breast cancer. Main results Repeated measures analysis of variance indicated that participants in both groups improved significantly over time on overall post-traumatic growth (p=0.015). Participants in the MBSR group improved on measures of spirituality more than those in the HA group (p=0.029). Participants in the MBSR group also showed more improvement than those in HA on measures of anxiety (POMS, p=0.038), anger (POMS, p=0.004), overall stress symptoms (SOSI, p=0.041), and mood disturbance (POMS, p=0.023). Several main effects of time were also observed in both groups. These results were found despite attrition in both groups. Conclusions Both programs may improve facilitation of positive growth after traumatic life experiences for those who choose to participate. MBSR may be more helpful than HA in enhancing spirituality and reducing stress, depression, and anger.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available