4.6 Review

The relationship between post-traumatic stress and post-traumatic growth in cancer patients and survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY
卷 29, 期 4, 页码 604-616

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pon.5314

关键词

cancer; oncology; post-traumatic growth; post-traumatic stress disorder

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Research on the relationship between post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)/post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) and post-traumatic growth (PTG) in cancer patients and survivors is increasing. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 51 studies that assessed the relationship between PTSD/PTSS and PTG, in cancer patients/survivors. Five databases were searched through 29 April 2019. The purpose of this manuscript is to report a summary of this literature, the aggregate effect size of the relationship between PTSD and PTG, and the examination of potential moderators that may impact the relationship between PTSD and PTG. Results The aggregate weighted effect size for the association between PTSD/PTSS and PTG was small, r = .08, but significantly different from zero. We examined whether time since diagnosis, stage of cancer, type of measure used to assess PTSD/PTSS, or type of measure used to assess PTG explained the significant heterogeneity among the individual effect sizes. The relationship was significantly stronger for the small subset of studies that included only stage 4 patients compared with those that included only non-stage 4 patients. Additionally, the strongest relationship was for those studies that used the Impact of Events Scale-Revised to assess PTSD. Conclusions The relationship between PTSD/PTSD and PTG is modestly positive and robust. There is evidence that the threat of advanced cancer is more strongly associated with growth, but none supporting that more time since cancer diagnosis allows survivors the opportunity to positively reinterpret and find meaning in the traumatic aspects of the disease resulting in more growth.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据