4.5 Article

Self-concept as a BMT patient, illness intrusiveness, and engulfment in allogeneic bone marrow transplant recipients

期刊

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOMATIC RESEARCH
卷 55, 期 5, 页码 419-425

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3999(03)00509-9

关键词

bone marrow transplantation; cancer; engulfment; illness intrusiveness; self-concept; quality of life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The experience of cancer and its treatment by bone marrow transplantation (BMT) can enhance the salience of one's status as a patient in the evolution of self-concept. Illness and the patient role can come to dominate the sense of self, resulting in feelings of hopelessness, helplessness, and distress (engulfment). Illness-induced lifestyle disruptions (illness intrusiveness) introduce adaptive demands, challenging preexisting conceptions of self Illness intrusiveness and engulfment may interact, leading affected individuals to construe themselves as highly similar to a prototypical BMT patient. Methods: Ninety allogeneic BMT outpatients completed the Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale, Modified Engulfment Scale, and a semantic differential measure of self-concept as a BMT patient in an interview context. Results: Illness intrusiveness correlated significantly with engulfment (r=.58, P<.0001) and with self-concept as a BMT patient (r=.27, P<.016). Engulfment did not correlate significantly with self-concept as a BMT patient (r=.15). Multiple regression analysis, controlling for relevant covariates, indicated a significant Illness Intrusiveness x Engulfment interaction effect on self-concept as a BMT patient [F(1,84)=4.93, P<.029]. Conclusions: Self-concept as a BMT patient increases as cancer and its treatment introduce increasing lifestyle disruptions (illness intrusiveness). These effects are amplified when self-experience is dominated by disease and treatment and patients feel helpless, hopeless, and distressed (engulfment). (C) 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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