↓ Skip to main content

Predicting general and cancer-related distress in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Predicting general and cancer-related distress in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer
Published in
BMC Cancer, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12885-016-2964-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Gibbons, AnnMarie Groarke, Karl Sweeney

Abstract

Psychological distress can impact medical outcomes such as recovery from surgery and experience of side effects during treatment. Identifying the factors that explain variability in distress would guide future interventions aimed at decreasing distress. Two factors that have been implicated in distress are illness perceptions and coping, and are part of the Self-Regulatory Model of Illness Behaviour (SRM). The model suggests that coping mediates the relationship between illness perceptions and distress. Despite this; very little research has assessed this relationship with cancer-related distress, and none have examined women with screen-detected breast cancer. This study is the first to examine the relative contribution of illness perceptions and coping on general and cancer-related distress in women with screen-detected breast cancer. Women recently diagnosed with breast cancer (N = 94) who had yet to receive treatment completed measures of illness perceptions (Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire), cancer-specific coping (Mental Adjustment to Cancer Scale), general anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale), and cancer-related distress. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that medical variables, illness perceptions and coping predicted 50% of the variance in depression, 42% in general anxiety, and 40% in cancer-related distress. Believing in more emotional causes to breast cancer (β = .22, p = .021), more illness identity (β = .25, p = .004), greater anxious preoccupation (β = .23, p = .030), and less fighting spirit (β = -.31, p = .001) predicted greater depression. Greater illness coherence predicted less cancer-related distress (β = -.20, p = .043). Greater anxious preoccupation also led to greater general anxiety (β = .44, p < .001) and cancer-related distress (β = .37, p = .001). Mediation analyses revealed that holding greater beliefs in a chronic timeline, more severe consequences, greater illness identity and less illness coherence increases cancer-specific distress (ps < .001) only if women were also more anxiously preoccupied with their diagnosis. Screening women for anxious preoccupation may help identify women with screen-detected breast cancer at risk of experiencing high levels of cancer-related distress; whilst illness perceptions and coping could be targeted for use in future interventions to reduce distress.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 12 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 11%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 18 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 January 2018.
All research outputs
#11,497,410
of 18,880,385 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,726
of 6,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,308
of 405,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#222
of 664 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,880,385 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,842 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 405,880 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 664 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.