| Title |
Fear of cancer recurrence and physical well-being among Chinese cancer survivors: the role of conscientiousness, positive reappraisal and hopelessness
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-016-3504-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kelly Yu-Hsin Liao, Nelson C.Y. Yeung, Celia C. Y. Wong, Krystal Warmoth, Qian Lu |
| Abstract |
The degree to which conscientiousness contributes to well-being in Chinese cancer survivors and the mechanisms through which conscientiousness is associated with well-being remain unclear. Based on Lent's restorative well-being model [1], the current study tested a mediation model of the contribution of conscientiousness, positive reappraisal, and hopelessness to fear of cancer recurrence (FCR), and physical well-being in a sample of 238 Chinese cancer survivors. Participants completed self-report questionnaires. Path analysis was used to analyze the linear relationships between the variables. The empirical model supported the mediator roles of positive reappraisal and hopelessness. Specifically, the results indicated that conscientiousness was first associated with positive reappraisal, which in turn was associated with decreased hopelessness, resulting in decreased FCR and improved physical well-being. In addition, the results showed that conscientiousness was associated with decreased hopelessness, which was then associated with decreased FCR and greater physical well-being. Conscientiousness confers benefits on FCR and physical well-being through the mechanisms of positive reappraisal and decreased hopelessness. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 19% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Librarian | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 22% |
| Unknown | 6 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 22% |
| Psychology | 7 | 22% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 March 2021.
All research outputs
#4,116,938
of 25,205,864 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#910
of 5,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,147
of 432,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#18
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,205,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,019 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 432,134 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.