3.8 Article

Psychological Adjustment to Lung Cancer: the role of self-compassion and social support

出版社

INST SUPERIOR MIGUEL TORGA
DOI: 10.7342/ismt.rpics.2016.2.1.30

关键词

Lung Cancer; Adjustment to Cancer; Psychopathology; Self-compassion; Social support

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The impact of the diagnosis of an oncologic disease is well-known in terms of psychological adjustment and quality of life. On the other hand it is known that depressive symptoms may also overlap the physical symptoms of cancer and cancer treatment, which may interfere in their detection and appropriate treatment approach. Objectives: The aim of the current study was to explore the relationship between psychological adjustment to lung cancer, self-compassion, social support and emotional negative states in patients with lung cancer. Method: Fifty-five patients diagnosed with lung cancer (38 men and 17 women) with ages ranging from 44 to 87 years old participated in the study. A set of self-report instruments was used: the Mini Mental Adjustment to Cancer Scale (MiniMac), the Self-compassion Scale (SCS; Neff, 2003), the Social Support Satisfaction Scale (SSSS) and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21). Results: Significant correlations were found between psychological adjustment, psychopathology, emotion regulation strategies (self-compassion), and social support. The predictive models for psychological adjustment and stress related symptomatology include self-compassion and social support as significant predictive variables. Regarding the predictive model for depressive symptomatology, mindfulness seems to be the only significant predictor. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that these patients may benefit, in their therapeutic approach, from the development of this kind of strategies (new ways of relating themselves with their emotional experiences and quality of their social networks) in order to promote a better psychological adjustment to their clinical condition.

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

3.8
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