Download A Social Cognitive Perspective on Coping With Cancer

461378
TCP41210.1177/0011000012461378
The Counseling PsychologistHoffman et al.
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
A Social Cognitive
Perspective on
Coping With Cancer:
Theory, Research,
and Intervention
The Counseling Psychologist
41(2) 240-267
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0011000012461378
http://tcp.sagepub.com
Mary Ann Hoffman,1 Robert W. Lent,1
and Trisha L. Raque-Bogdan1
Abstract
With increases in the number of cancer survivors, many persons now experience cancer as a chronic disease followed by adaptation to a new reality
of what is normal in their lives. In response, cancer survivorship researchers
have begun attending to the multidimensional needs of survivors, including
the need to promote optimal psychological adaptation and health. Theoretical models of well-being that account for the complexity of survivorship
issues are needed. We present a social cognitive model of restorative wellbeing as a framework for reviewing recent research on coping with early
stage adult cancer (i.e., stages I and II) and optimizing post-treatment adjustment. We focus on research on cancer-related coping strategies, efficacy beliefs,
personality traits, and environmental supports, which have been linked to
adjustment outcomes and which may inform psychosocial interventions. By
grounding this research in a theoretical base, we highlight the potential for
counseling psychologists’ contributions to cancer survivorship research.
Keywords
health psychology, content, prevention/well-being, adults, populations
1
University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA
Corresponding Author:
Mary Ann Hoffman, Department of Counseling, Higher Education, and Special Education,
University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA.
Email: [email protected]
The Division 17 logo denotes that this article is designated as a CE article. To purchase the
CE Test, please visit www.apa.org/ed/ce.
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
Hoffman et al.
241
Few life experiences can be the source of more dread and angst than receiving an adult cancer diagnosis, with the existential threats that it entails and the
whirl of decisions, treatments, and challenges that it sets in motion. Popular
accounts of the experience of coping with cancer are riveting, portraying the
image of a disease that has typically been approached as a supreme test for
medical science—with the emotional and psychological needs of patients and
their families, and issues of post-treatment survivorship, often comprising
distant considerations. In many ways, the race to find more effective biomedical treatments appears to have outpaced the search for ways to aid
patients’ psychosocial well-being (Rowland, 2008). The predominant metaphor in recent times has been that of waging a war on cancer, on eradicating
a ruthless and rapacious enemy within the patient. This contrasts to a growing
recognition of the importance of attending to the holistic needs of the person
in which this “enemy” resides both during and after treatment (National
Research Council, 2008).
Yet this situation has been gradually changing in recent years. Due to
advances in cancer detection, screening technologies, treatment, maintenance
therapies, and supportive care, the population of long-term cancer survivors
has been growing rapidly (Robinson, 2004; Rowland, 2008). This increase in
survivors has led to a shifting conception of cancer as a chronic, rather than
an acute, challenge for many persons and to the emerging field of cancer
survivorship (Feuerstein, 2007; Rowland, 2008). Following treatment, many
survivors show “no evidence of disease” (NED), but their health and wellbeing states are often similar to people living with chronic, long-term health
concerns (Maher & Fenlon, 2010), with frequent usage of health care services (Nord, Mykletun, Thorsen, Bjoro, & Fossa, 2005).
This article aims to contribute to the field of cancer survivorship by presenting a social cognitive model of restorative well-being as a framework for
reviewing recent research on coping with cancer and optimizing adjustment
among adult early stage (I and II) disease cancer survivors. According to the
National Cancer Institute’s Dictionary of Cancer Terms (2012), the concept
of cancer survivorship encompasses:
the physical, psychosocial, and economic issues of cancer, from diagnosis until the end of life. It focuses on the health and life of a person
with cancer beyond the diagnosis and treatment phases [and] includes
issues related to the ability to get health care and follow-up treatment,
late effects of treatment, second cancers, and quality of life.
Although survivorship for some adult cancers has improved dramatically
(e.g., an overall 5-year survival rate of 67% for adult cancer survivors;
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
242
The Counseling Psychologist 41(2)
Howlader et al., 2011), survivorship can vary greatly depending on such factors as the type and stage of cancer and the treatment utilized. The stage of
cancer can depend on tumor size and whether it has spread to the lymph
nodes or beyond, with a higher stage number indicating more extensive disease. For those with earlier stage cancers (Stages I and II), the survival rate is
higher (e.g., the 5-year survival rates for breast cancer range from 88% for
Stage I to 41% for Stage IIIB; for colon cancer, the range is from 74% for
Stage I to 46% for Stage IIIB; American Cancer Society, 2012). However,
the treatment utilized can result in a myriad of painful, distressing, and potentially life-threatening side effects, including the risk for secondary tumors
when undergoing radiation (Wang, 2000).
Once diagnosed, cancer has the potential to affect nearly every aspect of
an individual’s life, including the physical, psychological, interpersonal,
vocational, and spiritual domains (Aziz, 2007). Compared with individuals
who have not had cancer, survivors are more likely to report psychological
problems, poorer health, and functional limitations, such as being unable to
drive or work (Hewitt, Rowland, & Yancik, 2003). Individuals diagnosed at
a younger age (before 45) have been found to be at the highest risk for experiencing psychological problems, which can persist over time (Arndt et al.,
2004; Costanzo, Ryff, & Singer, 2009; Hewitt et al., 2003).
In a large-scale survey of self-identified cancer patients, 73% of whom
were 2 or more years’ post-treatment, Wolff (2007) found that over 70% of
respondents reported experiencing depression due to their cancer, 60%
reported relationship problems, and 83% reported decreased income. Over a
quarter indicated that they had insufficient resources for meeting their emotional and practical needs (e.g., work-related issues), and over half indicated
that meeting the emotional and practical consequences of cancer were more
difficult than the medical consequences. Yet despite these clearly adverse
impacts, many respondents also demonstrated considerable resilience. Sixtytwo percent reported that they were currently experiencing “good health,”
and 47% indicated that experiencing cancer had improved their lives in some
ways (Wolff, 2007).
In her article “What Are Cancer Survivors Telling Us?” Rowland (2008)
notes the resilience of cancer survivors, the sense of personal growth and
mastery that can attend survivorship, and the need to better understand factors that promote survivor well-being. Likewise, Feuerstein (2007) and Foster
and Fenlon (2011) cite the need for theoretical models focusing on the positive aspects of cancer survivorship. Counseling psychology has, historically,
been associated with a positive, strengths-based approach to health (Chwalisz
& Obasi, 2008) and a “hygiological” tradition of “locating and developing
personal and social resources and adaptive tendencies,” whether in the
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
Hoffman et al.
243
context of normative or highly distressing life experiences (Super, 1955,
p. 5). Yet despite the similar frameworks applied in the fields of cancer survivorship and counseling psychology, a recent survey of training directors of
American Psychological Association–accredited counseling psychology
doctoral programs estimated that less than 2% of counseling psychology faculty are engaged in cancer-related research (Raque-Bogdan, Torrey, Lewis,
& Borges, in press). This level of faculty involvement may limit training and
mentorship opportunities for counseling psychology students seeking to conduct research on cancer survivorship.
In this article, we hope to provide one bridge between the field of cancer
survivorship and counseling psychology’s focus on well-being by offering a
conceptual framework that may be used to organize part of the existing
research on psychological adaptation to cancer, to stimulate further research
on optimizing adjustment, and to serve as a theoretical platform for applied
interventions. Accordingly, we begin with an overview of a social cognitive
model of restorative well-being and use this model to organize and selectively review recent research on the cancer coping process, much of which
lacks a well-defined theoretical base. We searched the databases PsycInfo,
CINAHL, Health Source, Medline (searched via PubMed), Psychology and
Behavioral Sciences Collection, and PubMed using the terms cancer, early
stage, social cognitive, self-efficacy, coping, appraisal, optimism, and wellbeing for research that had been published in the last 10 years. We grounded
this more recent research within the context of earlier, seminal works on variables relevant to the restorative well-being model. We end by considering
future directions for research.
Restorative Model of Well-Being
Lent (2004) presented two models of subjective well-being (SWB), one
focused on how people maintain their sense of well-being under normative
life conditions and the other aimed at how they restore emotional equilibrium when confronted with particularly stressful conditions. Both models
were intended to be relatively broad in their applicability to different life
domains and contexts. The normative model has been generating a good bit
of research to this point, with most studies focusing on the academic and
social adjustment of college students (Sheu & Lent, 2009) and the job satisfaction of adult workers (Duffy & Lent, 2009), both in the United States
and abroad. We focus here on the model of restorative well-being, highlighting its relevance to research on the cancer coping process. Although
this model has not yet been tested empirically in its own right, it does
integrate a number of theoretical and research streams and thus may serve
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
244
The Counseling Psychologist 41(2)
as a useful framework for reviewing a portion of the research on psychosocial adaptation to cancer. Because it was designed as a general template
for understanding recovery of well-being after emotional setbacks, the
restorative model is not cancer-specific. That is, it does not specify how
particular medical factors, such as type of cancer or stage of treatment,
affect the trajectory of psychological coping with cancer. However, the
model has been extended conceptually to cancer coping (Lent, 2007), and
Foster and Fenlon (2011) recently adapted it to their research with persons
displaying a range of cancer types, sites, and stages. Although we see the
model as having particular utility for understanding coping with early stage
cancers that have a favorable prognosis (e.g., certain forms of breast
cancer)—and for the purposes of this article, only research involving Stage
I and II cancer will be reviewed—its range of applicability is ultimately an
empirical matter.
The model, shown in Figure 1, attempts to integrate a number of factors
that have been linked to coping and emotional recovery, beginning with the
awareness of a significant stressor and including the coping strategies, efficacy beliefs, personality factors, and environmental supports that may partly
affect psychosocial adjustment. The primary dependent variables in the
model include indicators of satisfactory problem coping (e.g., improved satisfaction and role functioning in specific life domains) and recovery of adequate levels of overall life satisfaction. To anchor the model in the context of
cancer survivorship, the figure includes cancer-specific examples of each
major concept.
In keeping with counseling psychology’s emphasis, the model emphasizes
strengths and positive adjustment outcomes. However, it also implicitly
acknowledges the possibility for lack of recovery (e.g., continued impairments in well-being), repeated or protracted coping, or the need to establish a
new baseline for well-being that does not necessarily equal one’s prediagnostic functioning. We also consider a range of adjustment outcomes
(e.g., psychological symptoms, changes in role functioning) associated with
the model’s variables in our review. It should be noted that, in the context of
cancer survivorship, the model views recovery as a relative concept. To the
extent that the experience of cancer has disrupted one’s characteristic level of
well-being, the focus is on improvement in functioning (e.g., reestablishing
at least a satisfactory level of well-being)—living better, as it were—rather
than complete problem resolution. We will review each class of variables,
below, tying the model to relevant research primarily from the past 10 years.
Given space limitations and the size of the literature, our review is necessarily selective, focusing on more recent work that may be linked to the social
cognitive model.
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
245
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
Source: Adapted from Lent (2004) by permission.
Figure 1. A Model of Restorative Well-Being, Showing the Interrlations of Personality, Affective, and Social Cognitive Variables in
the Coping Process
246
The Counseling Psychologist 41(2)
Problematic Events or Internal States
The restorative model assumes that the process through which people typically maintain their sense of well-being may become destabilized when they
are confronted by problematic external events (e.g., health threats) or internal
states (e.g., mood states, existential questions). In applying the model of
restorative well-being to cancer, the problematic event can be more difficult
to define than with more discrete events. Receiving a diagnosis of cancer
may be the focal event, but depending on the type and stage of cancer, a
cascade of problematic events may occur, resulting in redefinition of the
initial event and changing internal states. For many women with early stage
breast cancer, for example, diagnosis may be followed quickly by a lumpectomy, which marks the end of treatment and the beginning of recovery. For
others, the initial problematic event (diagnosis or symptoms leading to it)
may be redefined based on biopsies showing a more advanced cancer. Thus,
the trigger event may be better understood as an ongoing process that conveys new information about one’s health and new coping challenges (e.g.,
treatment implications). Moreover, the process of recovery may be delayed
or impeded by significant and often long-lasting side effects and the possibility of unsuccessful treatment and recurrence.
Unfortunately, many studies have examined reactions to diagnosis and
recovery using a cross-sectional rather than longitudinal design, used group data
that may miss idiographic reactions to problematic events, or included only participants with a good chance of survival (e.g., Hamana-Raz & Solomon, 2006).
Despite these limitations, three important themes do emerge in findings of
research on the psychosocial aspects of cancer diagnosis with adults. First, there
is considerable variability in response to a cancer diagnosis, with many persons
never reporting a significant level (e.g., meeting Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders diagnostic criteria) of distress (e.g., Henselmans
et al., 2010). This is especially true for cancers that have a high rate of treatment
success, such as breast and prostate cancer. For example, the majority of women
receiving treatment for early stage breast cancer do not report clinical levels of
distress at diagnosis (Jemal, Siegel, Xu, & Ward, 2010) or post-treatment (e.g.,
Kissane et al., 2004). Those diagnosed with a cancer with a poorer prognosis
(e.g., lung, pancreatic, head, neck), however, tend to report higher levels of distress (Zabora, BrintzenhofeSzoc, Curbow, Hooker, & Piantados, 2001).
A second theme is that diagnosis of cancer at a younger age (e.g., before
45), even when caught in early stages, is associated with enduring negative
effects, including significant and ongoing distress (e.g., Costanzo et al.,
2009), disruptions in key life roles (having and caring for children, work),
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
Hoffman et al.
247
poorer prognosis, and lack of peer support—perhaps because of the “offtime” nature of the health threat, occurring at a time when one’s peers generally tend to be healthy (Arndt et al., 2004). Third, pre-cancer vulnerabilities
(e.g., mood disorders, significant life stressors) are related to higher distress
at diagnosis and during treatment (Kissane et al., 2004).
Coping Appraisal and Strategies
The emergence of problematic events ushers in a coping process that
involves appraisal of the threats to one’s health and utilization of coping
strategies (e.g., problem-focused and emotion-focused coping, meaningmaking, shifts in life goals and roles) to protect and optimize one’s wellbeing in the face of health threats.
Coping appraisal. When confronted by a diagnosis of cancer, people typically engage in the cognitive process of appraising the nature of the stressor
(e.g., threat, actual harm or loss) and whether they have the capabilities
or resources to cope with it (e.g., Bowman, Deimling, Smerglia, Sage, &
Kahana, 2003; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Cognitive appraisal of one’s cancer has been related to anxiety and adjustment in that the higher the perceived
threat, the lower the level of well-being and the greater the level of distress
(Hamana-Raz & Solomon, 2006). The appraisal process often involves seeking information about treatment options and the likelihood of their success.
Next, available resources such as financial, social support, and treatment
access may be appraised to assess whether they are available and adequate to
meet the threat. Treatments that require frequent medical appointments, pain
or discomfort, disfigurement or loss of functions, medications that impair
functioning, or traveling great distances may be viewed as exceeding one’s
available resources. This may be especially so for persons without significant
others willing or able to assist with ongoing treatment. Appraisal of what
cancer may mean post-treatment in terms of valued goals (e.g., having a biological child), life roles, self-image, and fundamental assumptions about
one’s life may also occur. This type of appraisal is often referred to as
meaning-making (Park & Folkman, 1997).
The appraisal that one has control over one’s cancer can be a doubleedged sword. For example, baseline perceptions of control in women with
Stages I-III of breast cancer were associated with worse psychological and
physical functioning in women who experienced a cancer recurrence 5 years
after cancer treatment but not for women who remained cancer-free (Tomich
& Helgeson, 2006). In one of the few longitudinal studies of the relationship
between perceived control and psychological distress, results showed that as
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
248
The Counseling Psychologist 41(2)
perceived control increased over the year following breast cancer treatment,
psychological distress decreased (Barez, Blasco, Fernandez-Castro, &
Vilidrach, 2009). It appears that perceived control may be beneficial until it
is challenged by ongoing side effects, setbacks, and recurrences that often
occur with cancer. It may be helpful for persons facing a diagnosis of cancer
to acknowledge that there are limits to personal control and to receive assistance at identifying and managing those aspects of treatment and recovery
over which they have more and less control (e.g., selecting a medical team
that they trust and establishing a support network versus ruminating on
remaining in remission).
Appraisal and reappraisal occur throughout the cancer experience as new
information about one’s health emerges. Because some biomedical cancer
treatments can be relatively short term but intense (e.g., daily radiation therapy treatments for multiple weeks), during which patients have regular access
to trusted medical care, the sudden loss of such structure and support can
constitute new problematic events (National Research Council, 2005).
Moreover, the need to manage ongoing treatment effects, such as fatigue and
physical limitations, may conflict with expectations of the cancer survivor
and of significant others that life should return to normal (Jefford et al.,
2008). Cancer survivors may grieve over the loss of their pre-cancer life,
worry about cancer recurrences, and reappraise their expectations for their
new baseline of functioning.
Coping strategies. People implement strategies to cope with appraised
stressors. In keeping with stress coping theory, research on cancer has often
examined problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping, and more
recently, meaning-making (Park & Folkman, 1997). Problem-focused coping
is aimed at managing or resolving the stressor. For cancer survivors, problemfocused coping may begin with seeking a diagnosis, gathering information,
seeking second opinions, and making treatment decisions. It may not be surprising that problem-focused coping has been correlated with emotional
well-being in early stage cancers, given the often brief time span between
starting and ending treatment and the typical success rates in treating such
cancers (Matthews & Cook, 2009).
Emotion-focused coping is aimed at managing the internal aspects of the
stressor and may include distancing or distracting oneself or positively reappraising a stressor. For cancer survivors, emotion-focused coping may help
one to navigate emotional reactions (e.g., depression), functional limitations,
and changes in valued life roles. Positively appraising cancer, such as viewing it as an opportunity to learn from life experiences, has been related to
more positive perceptions of oneself, of one’s social relationships, and of
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
Hoffman et al.
249
one’s life meaning as well as to greater effort in redirecting energy toward
new goals when cancer makes previous goals unattainable (Schroevers,
Kraaji, & Garnefski, 2011). Other positive appraisal strategies, including
reframing cancer as a challenge with specific demands that must be overcome or as having the potential to make oneself stronger, have been positively related to well-being and negatively related to distress (Degner, Hack,
O’Neil, & Kristjanson, 2003). In contrast, avoidant forms of coping, such as
self-distraction, have been significantly related to negative effects during
treatment (Schroevers et al., 2011).
Austenfeld and Stanton (2004) distinguished “emotional approach coping” from the broader construct of emotion-focused coping, viewing the former as an adaptive strategy that involves “acknowledging, understanding,
and expressing emotion” (p. 1340). A longitudinal study of breast cancer
survivors found that those who reported higher levels of emotional approach
coping at the beginning of the study demonstrated enhanced physical health
and vigor, and less distress, 3 months later (Stanton et al., 2000). The findings
of this study also suggested the importance of being able to process as well as
express emotions so as to avoid getting caught in a pattern of rumination.
Additional research is needed on potential moderators of the relationship
between emotional approach coping and health outcomes, such as personality
factors, social receptivity to emotional expression, and the ability to selfregulate emotions (Austenfeld & Stanton, 2004).
Meaning-making is another type of reappraisal coping strategy, which
Park (2010) defines as the recovery of meaning or making new meaning
when facing highly stressful situations. In her integrative model of meaningmaking, Park (2010) explains that people rely on a global meaning-making
(or orienting) system that serves as a cognitive framework for understanding
their experiences. When facing stressful situations, such as experiencing cancer, people engage in an appraisal process in which they interpret the meaning of that experience compared to their global meaning and feel distressed to
the extent that a discrepancy exists between the appraised and global meaning. Meaning-making is the process of reducing the discrepancy between the
appraised and global meaning (Park, 2010; Park, Edmondon, Fenster, &
Blank, 2008). Meaning-making is hypothesized to result in improved adjustment through several mechanisms, such as acceptance, positive reappraisal,
integrating the experience into one’s identity or self-concept, or making positive changes in one’s life (e.g., improved relationships).
Within the context of cancer, widely varied prevalence rates of meaningmaking have been reported, ranging from 6% in older survivors (Schroevers,
Ranchor, & Sanderman, 2004) to 86% in breast cancer survivors (Lepore &
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
250
The Counseling Psychologist 41(2)
Kernan, 2009). Cancer survivors’ use of a meaning-making coping style
has been linked to improved emotional and social well-being (Boehmer,
Luszczynska, & Schwarzer, 2007) and decreased negative affect (Christie,
Meyerowitz, Giedzinska-Simons, Gross, & Angus, 2009) but not to enhanced
physical functioning (Boehmer et al., 2007; Tomich & Helgeson, 2002). A
meaning-making coping intervention has been linked to higher levels of selfesteem and optimism for breast cancer survivors (Lee, Cohen, Edgar, Laizner,
& Gagnon, 2006). On the other hand, the process of searching for meaning
has been related to worse mental and physical health outcomes for male prostate cancer survivors between the end of treatment and a 3-month follow-up
(Roberts, Lepore, & Helgeson, 2006). Similarly, Tomich and Helgeson
(2002) found that breast cancer survivors who continued to search for meaning more than 5 years post-diagnosis reported worse mental functioning, less
positive affect, and more negative affect. It may be that the ability to achieve
a sense of meaning may promote adjustment, while the protracted search for
meaning may actually exacerbate distress through processes such as rumination (e.g., Lepore & Kernan, 2009; Park et al., 2008).
Reassessing goals and life roles represent additional coping strategies.
Often it is necessary for cancer survivors to establish new life goals and life
roles that may be more achievable than their precancer goals (Schroevers et
al., 2011). The ability to set these new goals has been linked to positive psychological changes in self-perceptions, interpersonal relationships, and life
meaning (Schroevers et al., 2011). For people who survive cancer at an older
age, changes in life goals and life roles (such as taking an earlier retirement
and becoming a retiree) may not seem substantially “off-time” relative to
peers who make similar changes because of other health or family concerns.
In contrast, people who survive cancer at a younger age may struggle to a
greater degree with the implications for their life goals and roles (Arndt et al.,
2004; Costanzo et al., 2009).
Across age groups, Pinquart, Nixdorf-Haenchen, and Silbereisen (2005)
found that when compared with healthy controls, recently diagnosed cancer
survivors described a greater emphasis on goals related to social (e.g.,
increasing time spent with family and friends), transcendental (e.g., strengthen
spirituality), and health (e.g., become healthier) issues compared to goals
related to achievement (e.g., career success or increasing material possessions). Additionally, cancer survivors reported a lower number of life goals,
higher perceived difficulty of goals, less effort to achieve their goals, and a
greater focus on short-term compared to long-term goals. Furthermore, cancer status and age interacted with goals such that only younger survivors
reported a greater emphasis on shorter-term goals, whereas older survivors
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
Hoffman et al.
251
did not report this same level of shift in their goal timeframe. Pinquart et al.
(2005) suggest that older cancer survivors may have already adjusted their
goal setting to account for their age by the time they have been diagnosed
with cancer, and therefore their goal setting is less affected than that of
younger survivors. Cancer survivors also often report changes in life priorities or values (Harper et al., 2007). The proverbial “brush with mortality”
may lead to a reappraisal of purpose in life, redefinitions of valued life goals,
and a desire to see benefit in this adverse life experience. This fits Park and
Folkman’s (1997) view that external problematic events (in this case, beginning life after cancer) can stimulate the internal meaning-making process.
Problem-Related Coping Efficacy
In the restorative well-being model, problem-related coping-efficacy is seen
as an important part of the coping process, partly mediating the effect of coping strategies and environmental supports (see Figure 1). Coping efficacy is
a form of self-efficacy that refers to people’s beliefs in their ability to negotiate particular stressors or obstacles (Bandura, 1997). These beliefs are
assumed to affect how people perceive and react to particular adverse life
events and conditions. Favorable perceptions of coping efficacy are likely to
help people organize and deploy the coping methods at their disposal, draw
effectively on environmental supports, and persist at problem-solving when
faced with difficult conditions.
In the domain of cancer survivorship, coping efficacy includes beliefs
about one’s ability to deal with myriad challenges posed by the cancer experience, such as coping with treatment-related side effects, seeking and understanding medical information, and obtaining support to manage cancer
treatment and recovery (Merluzzi & Sanchez, 1997). Although the literature
on cancer-specific coping efficacy is somewhat limited to this point, available data suggest that stronger efficacy is related to positive outcomes such
as higher quality of life (QOL) and fewer negative emotions (Heitzmann
et al., 2011). Rather than conceptualizing coping efficacy as a general attribute, it may be that different types, stages, and treatment modalities associated with cancer call upon a variety of coping skills and hence efficacy
beliefs. Some studies have, therefore, examined perceived ability to cope
with the cancer-specific events of a particular type of cancer. Hamana-Raz
and Solomon (2006) found that subjective ability to cope with the surgery
and chemotherapy associated with melanoma was positively associated with
well-being and negatively associated with distress. Wenzel et al. (2002)
found that emotional well-being in women being treated for ovarian cancer
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
252
The Counseling Psychologist 41(2)
was significantly related to confidence in managing the illness-related neurotoxicity of chemotherapy treatment. Manne et al. (2006) examined selfefficacy in women with early stage breast cancer immediately after treatment
and 1 year later, finding that certain domains of efficacy (e.g., activity management) increased, while other domains remained stable over time. Such
studies highlight the fact that the optimal nature of coping efficacy and the
skills with which it is associated may depend on the type of cancer and its
treatment.
Personality and Affective Dispositions
Personality traits and dispositional variables play important roles in people’s
reactions to negative events and traumas. Certain traits may, for example,
affect how people appraise life events, perceive their coping efficacy, and
manage coping strategies (Lent, 2004). Although personality and affective
characteristics have not been predictive of cancer mortality, researchers have
found that these variables affect reactions to diagnosis and treatment including managing physical outcomes such as pain perception (Porter et al.,
2002). We provide a brief overview of findings on several of the most studied personality factors in cancer survivorship research, including optimism,
positive and negative affect, and generalized self-efficacy (GSE).
Dispositional optimism. Research has consistently found a relationship
between optimism as measured early in treatment and more favorable psychological outcomes. During the first year of treatment for breast cancer,
women who reported no significant clinical distress exhibited higher levels
of both optimism and mastery compared to women who reported significant
levels of distress (Henselmans et al., 2010). Higher optimism during initial
treatment has also been shown to predict adjustment as long as 5-13 years
after treatment in women with early stage breast cancer (Carver et al., 2005).
In contrast, research has found that lower levels of optimism were predictive
of higher levels of depressive symptoms several years post-treatment in
women with breast cancer (Bardwell et al., 2006). Optimism has also been
associated with increases in positive psychosocial and health behaviors
(Harper et al., 2007), higher levels of social support and emotional wellbeing (Matthews & Cook, 2009), and physical and psychological functioning
(Helgeson, Snyder, & Seltman, 2004).
Most studies have viewed optimism as a unidimensional construct rather
than viewing optimism and pessimism as two partially independent constructs.
In a study examining independent contributions of both optimism and pessimism to psychological well-being, higher optimism and lower pessimism
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
Hoffman et al.
253
were each associated with more positive affect in newly diagnosed persons
with a variety of types of cancer (Pinquart, Frohlich, & Silbereisen, 2007).
Over the course of treatment, above median levels of pessimism were also
associated with the number of reported side effects from chemotherapy.
Positive and negative affect. Schroevers, Kraaji, and Garnefski (2011) examined the relations of both positive and negative affect to a variety of outcomes
in a study of patients presenting with diverse types and stages of cancer.
Similar to the findings of the Pinquart et al. (2007) study on optimism and
pessimism, positive and negative affect seemed to act as separate constructs.
Specifically, positive changes such as positive reappraisal and goal reengagement were related to greater positive affect, whereas negative changes (e.g.,
avoidant coping) were related to both greater negative affect and less positive
affect.
A question that remains unanswered regarding personality and affective
characteristics of persons with cancer is whether these differences existed
prior to diagnosis. In a longitudinal study of psychosocial reactions to cancer,
some members of the noncancer comparison group were eventually diagnosed with cancer, providing the researchers with data on premorbid characteristics (Costanzo et al., 2009). A surprising finding was that those in this
group who developed cancer (in contrast to the remainder of the comparison
group) reported higher levels of negative affect and lower levels of positive
affect both prior to and after cancer diagnosis. This sample was small and the
results must be interpreted with caution, but it is interesting to speculate on
why these lower levels of positive affect and higher levels of negative affect
were found prior to diagnosis. It might be, for example, that this cohort had
other premorbid characteristics such as smoking, obesity, or ongoing life
stressors that relate both to positive and negative affect and cancer risk.
GSE. Unlike domain-specific self-efficacy, GSE is considered a personality variable. Referring to global confidence in one’s capabilities across life
contexts, GSE has been examined in a few cancer studies. In a study of German cancer patients, higher levels of GSE were associated with less depression and fatigue, better health, greater information seeking and use of active
coping strategies, and higher levels of emotional, social, and cognitive functioning (Luszczynska, Scholz, & Schwarzer, 2005). Studying breast cancer
survivors, Rottman, O’ Dalton, Christensen, Frederiksen, and Johansen
(2010) found that higher levels of GSE at baseline were associated with use
of an active coping style and emotional well-being 12 months later. GSE was
not, however, predictive of social or physical well-being. Schwarzer, Boehmer,
Luszczynska, Mohamed, and Knoll (2005) reported that, among male and
female cancer patients who had undergone tumor surgery, GSE predicted
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
254
The Counseling Psychologist 41(2)
later use of four coping strategies (planning, humor, acceptance, and accommodation). The authors argued that GSE may increase flexibility and creativity in identifying coping strategies effective for dealing with cancer.
Environmental Supports and Resources
Environmental supports and resources offer key aids to emotional and
physical coping. They come in a variety of forms and serve a variety of functions, such as emotional support, cognitive guidance, access to coping models, learning new coping strategies, and social persuasion regarding one’s
coping efficacy. Although we categorize psychosocial interventions, such as
therapy and peer support groups, as instances of environmental supports and
resources, our brief review will focus on naturally occurring support systems. However, we assume that formal interventions may be particularly
valuable where informal support systems are deficient or become depleted,
which can occur with chronic or highly challenging stressors.
One way to classify types of environmental support is in terms of structural and functional social support. Helgeson (2003) defines functional support as the quality of the resources that individuals within the cancer survivor’s
social network (including medical personnel) provide; this can include emotional, instrumental, and informational support. In contrast, Helgeson (2003)
defines structural support as the amount and interconnectedness of the individual’s support network, such as marital or partner status, number of and
access to friends, and key life roles that provide support. Given the extensiveness of research on the role of social support during and following cancer
treatment, we can highlight only a few particularly relevant studies (also see
reviews by Helgeson, 2003; Helgeson & Cohen, 1996).
Much of the research on cancer-related social support focuses on support from family and friends, linking such support to both health-related
and psychosocial QOL (Helgeson & Cohen, 1996). Although research suggests that, among the types of support, emotional support is viewed most
positively by cancer survivors and has the strongest relationship with positive outcomes, it may depend on who is offering the support and the context
of that support (Helgeson & Cohen, 1996). For example, peer group interventions designed to provide informational support may be preferred by
cancer survivors over ones that offer emotional support, whereas cancer
survivors prefer emotional support over informational support from friends
and family (Helgeson & Cohen, 1996). The stress-buffering hypothesis
posits that social support reduces one’s vulnerability to distress in the face
of stressors (Cohen & Wills, 1985). While social support from family and
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
Hoffman et al.
255
friends can be helpful, they can also be a source of distress for persons with
cancer (Dakof & Taylor, 1990). In fact, the effect of negative social interactions with significant others may sometimes outweigh the benefits of positive social interactions (Manne, Taylor, Dougherty, & Kemeny, 1997).
An interesting but infrequently explored area of research that may help
explain why some cancer survivors report positive social interactions whereas
others report negative interactions is social disclosure. These studies examine
what and why cancer survivors disclose to others about their treatment and
recovery and how others respond to these disclosures. Prostate cancer survivors reported that their primary reasons for disclosing diagnosis, treatment,
and recovery information was to seek social support and to share information
that they believed others had the right to know (Jackson et al., 2010).
Perceived emotional support following these disclosures was related to experiencing positive emotions and to engaging in ongoing discussions of treatment side effects. A study of breast cancer survivors by Figueiredo, Fries,
and Ingram (2004) examined the effects of disclosure patterns and unsupportive interactions. Results showed that women most often disclosed to family and friends (vs. mental health workers) and focused most on concerns
about how their illness affected family members and their own fears of recurrence. For those who disclosed their concerns, minimizing or distancing
responses from others were seen as most unsupportive and were associated
with problematic emotional and social functioning and greater role limitations. Women who did not disclosure treatment and recovery concerns to
others reported lower social support and well-being. Because disclosure is a
dyadic process, future research might examine not only survivors’ disclosures and intentions but also receivers’ perceptions and reactions.
In addition to its stress-buffering effects, it is possible that social support
may help persons with cancer to assimilate the meaning of their experience
by improving their ability to cognitively process this troubling event. This
hypothesis was tested in a study of men with prostate cancer to see if stronger
social supports led to enhanced QOL through the meditating role of cognitive
processing (Roberts et al., 2006). Baseline data were collected soon after
cancer treatment and the men were interviewed 3 months later. Results
showed that social support at Time 1 was positively related to psychological
functioning at Time 2 and that this relationship was mediated by indicators of
cognitive processing. In contrast to searching for meaning, which can lead to
intrusive thoughts, the researchers speculated that cognitive processing with
a significant other led to finding meaning.
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
256
The Counseling Psychologist 41(2)
Adjustment Outcomes
The restorative model was framed with counseling and psychoeducational
interventions in mind and drew upon the literatures in domain-specific and
global well-being. It therefore highlights two types of outcome variables:
changes in functioning directly related to the problem condition (i.e., problem resolution, satisfaction in specific affected life domains) and more general improvement in (and where possible, return to baseline levels of) life
satisfaction, which may have been diminished by the onset of the problem.
It is reasonable to assume that the experience of cancer can affect functioning
and satisfaction within multiple life domains (e.g., work, family, social, and
other roles may all become disrupted to varying degrees) and that this coping
burden may, in turn, impact overall life satisfaction. However, the literature
on psychological adaptation to cancer does not align neatly with these two
classes of outcome variables (problem resolution and life satisfaction recovery). Rather, the literature includes a diverse array of outcomes reflecting
return to key life roles, perceptions of health and wellness, improved affect
following treatment for cancer, and QOL. We cover these outcomes under
the headings of changes (both positive and negative) in (a) psychological and
role functioning and (b) emotional well-being and QOL. The studies
reviewed in this section generally examined functioning in the absence of
formal psychosocial intervention, thus providing a window on the natural
course of psychological reaction and adjustment to cancer.
Changes in psychological and role functioning. Multiple domains and life
roles may be affected by cancer diagnosis and treatment. Compared to those
without a history of cancer, survivors more often report psychological concerns, such as depression, and functional limitations (e.g., being unable to
work; Hewitt et al., 2003). Psychosocial consequences of cancer have been
studied over extended time periods to see if the negative effects endure. For
example, Harrington, Hansen, Moskowitz, Todd, and Feuerstein (2010)
reviewed the literature on evidence of cancer symptom burden following
treatment in four common types of cancer (breast, gynecological, prostate,
and colorectal). In addition to physical limitations, depression, pain, and
fatigue were commonly found across all four types of cancers, and these
problems did not fully resolve for most despite the number of years since
treatment, with some survivors reporting continued problems up to 10 years
post-treatment.
Other studies have examined single types of cancer or focused on particular stages of cancer to better understand the resolution of problematic cancer
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
Hoffman et al.
257
effects. Helgeson et al. (2004) studied breast cancer survivors, most of whom
were Stage I or II at diagnosis. About 43% of the women reported only modest positive changes in psychological functioning from diagnosis to posttreatment, another 45% showed slow to rapid improvement, and about 12%
showed a steady decline. Similar patterns of impact, recovery, or decline
have been reported in other studies (Henselmans et al., 2010). Some of the
variation in psychological symptoms over time may be due to treatment side
effects, cancer recurrences, or premorbid vulnerabilities (e.g., negative affect,
mood disorders). Other factors include age, levels of personal resources
(optimism, perceived control) and social support (Helgeson et al., 2004), and
perceptions of treatment side effects (Traeger et al., 2009).
Some researchers have studied disruptions in valued role functions, such
as work life. It has been found, across studies, that an average of 62% of
cancer survivors (range 30%-93%) return or continue to work during or after
treatment (Spelten, Spranger, & Verbeek, 2002). According to a 2006 survey
of American households affected by cancer (The Kaiser Family Foundation,
2006), 4 in 10 households with a family member with cancer reported that the
family member worked at the time of diagnosis. Of those, 36% said that cancer affected how well they could do their job, and about 10% were removed
from their job or had to change their job as a result of their cancer. Survivors
returning to work have reported difficulties with concentrating and managing
stress, physical side effects (e.g., fatigue, arm swelling, speech difficulties,
bowel and urinary problems), inability to perform at their precancer level,
changed relationships with coworkers, and the need for time off for medical
appointments (Kennedy, Haslam, Munir, & Pryce, 2007). A growing body of
research is showing poorer psychosocial recovery for younger women diagnosed with breast cancer, perhaps because a cancer diagnosis at a younger
age may be perceived as a greater survival threat and may interrupt attainment of key life goals (e.g., having a family, developing a career trajectory)
and building of social supports that might buffer the effects of cancer on
well-being (Shaha & Bauer-Wu, 2009).
Changes in emotional well-being and QOL. Outcomes denoting recovery in
well-being vary considerably in the cancer literature and include overall
QOL, return to baseline levels of distress, and maintaining or improving levels of SWB. A study comparing breast cancer survivors at 5 years post-treatment
to age-matched controls found that there were no overall differences on psychosocial QOL (Helgeson & Tomich, 2005). However, participants who had
experienced breast cancer recurrence reported poorer QOL than did those
who had remained in remission. It may be, therefore, that both initial prognosis and changes in health status over time affect the process of assimilating
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
258
The Counseling Psychologist 41(2)
the cancer experience. It may also be that personal characteristics such as
optimism contribute to QOL at post-treatment. In a study of breast cancer
survivors, dispositional optimism was associated both at diagnosis and the
post-treatment period with better QOL and fewer symptoms (Schou,
Ekeberg, Sandvik, Hjermstad, & Ruland, 2005). Other research has linked
optimism and partner support to better psychosocial QOL among early stage
breast cancer survivors 5-13 years after treatment (Carver, Smith, Petronis, &
Antoni, 2006).
Wenzel et al. (2002) studied QOL at 5 years post-treatment in early stage
ovarian cancer survivors. As a group, these women reported QOL and psychological well-being similar to same-aged, noncancer cohorts despite
reporting concerns about follow-up cancer checks and fear of recurrence.
However, a sizable minority (20%) of these cancer survivors did report
enduring clinically significant cancer-related problems such as psychological
distress, declining health status, and treatment side effects. Despite showing
NED, this subset of women continued to report psychosocial and physical
concerns (e.g., pain, fatigue) that were associated with poorer QOL.
In a study that compared QOL of breast cancer survivors 1 year after
diagnosis to general population norms, global health QOL scores were similar for the cancer survivors and the norm group, but major deficits were
found for psychosocial aspects of QOL (Arndt et al., 2004). When these data
were analyzed by age of survivor, deficits in psychosocial QOL were found
only for younger women. A number of other studies have found that younger
cancer survivors are less likely to return to baseline levels of QOL (e.g.,
Costanzo et al., 2009; Hewitt et al., 2003). A study sampling men with prostate cancer (which is similar to breast cancer in recovery rates but, unlike
breast cancer, does not include significant numbers of younger survivors)
found that most of the men quickly returned to relatively high levels of QOL
(Roberts et al., 2006).
Implications for Future Research
Our selective review of the literature, using the social cognitive model as our
organizing framework, suggests several implications for future research. One
limitation of the literature we reviewed is that data were often analyzed at the
group level, which may obscure within-group variations in emotional recovery and role functioning (Helgeson et al., 2004; Henselmans et al., 2010;
Wenzel et al., 2002). For example, group studies of breast cancer survivors
offer optimistic conclusions about survivors’ emotional resilience but may
overlook a significant minority who become distressed and remain so. In
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
Hoffman et al.
259
addition to differential patterns of recovery, more research is needed to determine the role of premorbid characteristics, positive supports, coping efficacy
and strategies, treatment side effects, and cancer recurrences in emotional
recovery.
Another need involves efforts to better define the goal of emotional recovery. Is it, for example, best conceptualized as a return to pre-diagnosis levels
of domain and life satisfaction or role functioning? Or does it involve the
creation of a new baseline or adjusted standards for normality postdiagnosis?
The transition to recovery is another important topic in terms of how rapidly
this occurs and what factors facilitate or hinder this transition. There is also a
need for more research on conceptualizing emotional recovery in persons
with cancers with a poorer biomedical prognosis.
More research is needed that examines functioning and well-being at multiple time points (e.g., using online monitoring of affect). This is especially
important in studies that examine the effects of psychosocial interventions
(Osborn, Demoncada, & Feuerstein 2006).
It would be useful for longitudinal and experimental intervention studies
to be guided by theory, and we believe the social cognitive model we
described offers one viable framework. The model would suggest a focus on
particular cognitive, affective, behavioral, and social pathways through
which emotional recovery may occur. For example, does reengagement (to
the extent possible) in valued life activities or resetting of particular life goals
promote recovery in SWB? Can access to coping models (e.g., via online or
face-to-face support groups) bolster coping efficacy and expand one’s repertoire of coping strategies? In addition, although we examined each set of
social cognitive elements individually in our review, there is a need for
research examining how the full set of elements function together in the
recovery process. For example, does cancer-specific coping efficacy partly
mediate the effects of coping strategies and social support on adjustment
outcomes?
We believe the model also offers ideas for designing, structuring, and testing
specific model elements. One example is the goal-setting process given that
progress toward valued life goals may be compromised by diagnosis and treatment. What factors disrupt the goal setting process, and how do survivors revive
or revise previous goals, set new goals, identify markers of progress, access
needed resources, and respond to goal-related successes and disappointments?
Second, research might focus on how survivors reengage with valued life
activities that may have been curtailed by cancer treatment. Valued activity
involvement can offer multiple benefits, such as reestablishing a sense of life
structure and purpose, promoting goal pursuit and domain satisfaction, and
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
260
The Counseling Psychologist 41(2)
limiting rumination and social isolation (Cantor & Sanderson, 1999; Lent,
2004). Engaging in such activities as interacting with friends may, among
other things, offer opportunities for receiving and giving social support, and
social support has been linked to the psychological health of cancer survivors
(Helgeson & Cohen, 1996).
Third, survivors often report the need for specific support with managing
the impact of cancer on activities of daily life—a need that may be complicated by low self-efficacy at requesting or accessing social support (Foster &
Fenlon, 2011). Thus, research might focus on bolstering self-efficacy and
skills at marshalling needed social supports as well as in performing tasks
that may facilitate adjustment. Such research could draw upon the four
sources of efficacy information (Bandura, 1997) as a general structure for
raising self-efficacy and skills in relation to particular coping tasks and strategies (e.g., dealing with work reentry, disclosing aspects of one’s recovery
experience to significant others in a manner that facilitates the receipt of positive social support). A number of additional research directions, both for psychosocial intervention and greater understanding of emotional recovery in
the aftermath of cancer diagnosis and treatment, may be derived from the
restorative well-being model (Lent, 2004, 2007).
Conclusion
We believe that counseling psychologists can play valuable roles, both as
researchers and practitioners, in addressing the psychosocial needs of cancer
survivors and of those in their support systems, whose own well-being may
well have been affected by the cancer experience. Psychosocial interventions
may not optimally affect physical functioning or survival rates in the aftermath of cancer (Chow, Tsao, & Harth, 2004; Osborn et al., 2006). However,
they may have great potential to promote recovery of emotional well-being
and other aspects of adjustment, thereby enabling survivors to derive as
much pleasure and productivity as possible from life, given the uncertainties
and disruptions imposed by the cancer experience. The social cognitive
model of restorative well-being we have presented may be useful as a framework for organizing part of the literature on the psychosocial adjustment to
cancer, as a source of hypotheses for future research on coping with cancer,
and as a template for intervention design.
Authors’ Note
This paper is dedicated to Damon L. Silvers, survivor of Stage IV cancer and spouse
of the first author, Mary Ann Hoffman.
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
Hoffman et al.
261
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
American Cancer Society. (2012, March 6). Breast cancer survival by stage.
Retrieved from http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/DetailedGuide/breastcancersurvival-by-stage
Arndt, V., Merx, H., Sturmer, T., Stegmaier, C., Ziegler, H., & Brennera, H. (2004).
Age-specific detriments to quality of life among breast cancer patients one year
after diagnosis European Journal of Cancer, 40, 673-680.
Austenfeld, J. L., & Stanton, A. S. (2004). Coping through emotional approach: A
new look at emotion, coping, and health-related outcomes. Journal of Personality,
72, 1335-1364.
Aziz, N. M. (2007). Late effects of treatment. In P. A. Ganz (Ed.), Cancer survivorship: Today and tomorrow (pp. 54-76). New York: Springer.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Bardwell, W. A., Nataraian, L., Dimsdale, J. E., Rock, C. L., Mortimer, J. E.,
Hollenbach, K., & Pierce, J. P. (2006). Objective cancer-related variables are not
associated with depressive symptoms in women treated for early-stage breast
cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 24, 2420-2427.
Barez, M., Blasco, T., Fernandez-Castro, J., & Vilidrach, C. (2009). Perceived control
and psychological distress in women with breast cancer: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 32(2), 187-196.
Boehmer, S., Luszczynska, A., & Schwarzer, R. (2007). Coping and quality of life
after tumor surgery: Personal and social resources promote different domains of
quality of life. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 20, 61-75.
Bowman, K. F., Deimling, G. T., Smerglia, V., Sage, P., & Kahana, B. (2003).
Appraisal of the cancer experience by older long-term survivors. PsychoOncology, 12, 226-238.
Cantor, N., & Sanderson, C. A. (1999). Life task participation and well-being: The
importance of taking part in daily life. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener., & N. Schwarz
(Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 230-243). New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Carver, C. S., Smith, R. G., Antoni, M. H., Petronis, V. M., Weiss, S., & Derhagopian, R.
P. (2005). Optimistic personality and psychosocial well-being during treatment
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
262
The Counseling Psychologist 41(2)
predict psychosocial well-being among long-term survivors of breast cancer.
Health Psychology, 24, 508-516.
Carver, C. S., Smith, R. G., Petronis, V. M., & Antoni, M. H. (2006). Quality of life
among long-term survivors of breast cancer: Different types of antecedents predict different classes of outcomes. Psycho-Oncology, 15, 749-758.
Chow, E., Tsao, M., & Harth, T. (2004). Does psychosocial intervention improve
survival in cancer? A meta-analysis. Palliative Medicine, 18, 25-31.
Christie, K. M., Meyerowitz, B. E., Giedzinska-Simons, A., Gross, M., & Angus, D. B.
(2009). Predictors of affect following treatment decision-making for prostate cancer: Conversations, cognitive processing, and coping. Psycho-Oncology, 18, 508-514.
Chwalisz, K., & Obasi, E. (2008). Promoting health and preventing and reducing
disease. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology
(4th ed., pp. 517-534). New York: Wiley.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357.
Costanzo, E. S., Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2009). Psychosocial adjustment among
cancer survivors: Findings from a national survey of health and well-being. Health
Psychology, 28, 147-156.
Dakof, G. A., & Taylor, S. E. (1990). Victims’ perceptions of social support: What
is helpful from whom? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 80-89.
Degner, L. F., Hack, T., O’Neil, J., & Kristjanson, L. J. (2003). A new approach to
eliciting meaning in the context of breast cancer. Cancer Nursing, 26, 169-178.
Duffy, R. D., & Lent, R. W. (2009). Test of a social cognitive model of work satisfaction in teachers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 212-223.
Feuerstein, M. (2007). Cancer survivorship: A bird’s eye view from an insider. In
M. Feuerstein (Ed.), Handbook of cancer survivorship (pp. 1-6). New York: Springer.
Figueiredo, M. I., Fries, E., & Ingram, K. M. (2004). The role of disclosure patterns
and unsupportive social interactions in the well-being of breast cancer patients.
Psycho-Oncology, 13, 96-105.
Foster, C., & Fenlon, D. (2011). Recovery and self-management support following
primary cancer treatment. British Journal of Cancer, 105, 21-28.
Hamana-Raz, Y., & Solomon, Z. (2006). Psychological adjustment of melanoma survivors: The contribution of hardiness, attachment, and cognitive appraisal. Journal of Individual Differences, 27, 172-182.
Harper, F. W. K., Schmidt, J. E., Beacham, A. O., Salsman, J. M., Averill, A. J.,
Graves, K. D., & Andrykowski, M. A. (2007). The role of social cognitive
processing theory and optimism in positive psychosocial and physical behavior
change after cancer diagnosis and treatment. Psycho-Oncology, 16, 79-91.
Harrington, C. B., Hansen, J. A., Moskowitz, M., Todd, B. L., & Feuerstein, M.
(2010). It’s not over when it’s over: Long-term symptoms in cancer survivors—A
systematic review. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 40, 163-181.
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
Hoffman et al.
263
Heitzmann, C. A., Merluzzi, T. V., Jean-Pierre, P., Roscoe, J. A., Kirsh, K. L., &
Passik, S. D. (2011). Assessing self-efficacy for coping with cancer: Development and psychometric analysis of the Brief Version of the Cancer Behavior
Inventory (CBI-B). Psycho-oncology, 20, 302-312.
Helgeson, V. S. (2003). Social support and quality of life. Quality of Life Research,
12(Suppl. 1), 25-31.
Helgeson, V. S., & Cohen, S. (1996). Social support and adjustment to cancer: Reconciling descriptive, correlational, and intervention research. Health Psychology,
15, 135-148.
Helgeson, V. S., Snyder, P., & Seltman, H. (2004). Psychological and physical adjustment to breast cancer over 4 years: Identifying distinct trajectories of change.
Health Psychology, 23, 3-15.
Helgeson, V. S., & Tomich, P. L. (2005). Surviving cancer: A comparison of 5-year
free disease-free breast cancer survivors with healthy women. Psycho-Oncology,
14, 307-317.
Henselmans, I., Helgeson, V. S., Seltman, H., de Vries, J., Sanderman, R., & Ranchor, A. V.
(2010). Identification and prediction of distress trajectories in the first year after a
breast cancer diagnosis. Health Psychology, 29, 160-168.
Hewitt, M., Rowland, J. H., & Yancik, R. (2003). Cancer survivors in the United
States: Age, health, and disability. Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological
Sciences & Medical Sciences, 58, 82-91.
Howlader, N., Noone, A. M., Krapcho, M., Neyman, N., Aminou, R., Waldron, W.,
& Edwards, B. K. (2011). SEER cancer statistics review, 1975-2008. Bethesda,
MD: National Cancer Institute. Retrieved from National Cancer Institute website:
http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2008/
Institute for Medicine (IOM; 2005). From cancer patient to cancer survivor: Lost in
transition. Washington, DC: The National Academies of Press.
Institute of Medicine (IOM; 2008). Cancer care for the whole patient: Meeting psychosocial health needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies of Press.
Jackson, T., Davis, K., Haisfield, L., Dawson, D., Lynch, J., Regan, J., . . . Taylor, K.
(2010). Disclosure of diagnosis and treatment among early stage prostate cancer
survivors. Patient Education & Counseling, 79, 239-244.
Jefford, M., Karahalios, E., Pollard, A., Baravelli, C., Carey, M., Franklin, J., . . . Schofield,
P. (2008). Survivorship issues following treatment completion: Results from
focus groups with Australian cancer survivors and health professionals. Journal
of Cancer Survivorship, 2, 20-32.
Jemal, A., Siegel, R., Xu, J., & Ward, E. (2010). Cancer statistics, 2010. CA: A Cancer
Journal for Clinicians, 60, 277-300.
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
264
The Counseling Psychologist 41(2)
The Kaiser Family Foundation. (2006). USA Today/Kaiser Family Foundation/
Harvard School of Public Health National Survey of Households Affected by
Cancer. Retrieved from http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/pomr112006pkg.cfm
Kennedy, F., Haslam, C., Munir, F., & Pryce, J. (2007). Returning to work following
cancer: A qualitative exploratory study into the experience of returning to work
following cancer. European Journal of Cancer Care, 16, 17-25.
Kissane, D. W., Grabsch, B., Love, A., Clarke, D. M., Bloch, S., & Smith, G. C.
(2004). Psychiatric disorder in women with early stage and advanced breast cancer: A comparative analysis. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry,
38, 320-326.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York:
Springer.
Lee, V., Cohen, S. R., Edgar, L., Laizner, A. M., & Gagnon, A. J. (2006). Meaningmaking intervention during breast or colorectal cancer treatment improves selfesteem, optimism, and self-efficacy. Social Science & Medicine, 62, 3133-3145.
Lent, R. W. (2004). Toward a unifying theoretical and practical perspective on wellbeing and psychosocial adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 482-509.
Lent, R. W. (2007). Restoring emotional well-being: A theoretical model. In
M. Feuerstein (Ed.), Handbook of cancer survivorship (pp. 231-247). New York:
Springer.
Lepore, S. J., & Kernan, W. D. (2009). Searching for and making meaning after breast
cancer: Prevalence, patterns, and negative affect. Social Science & Medicine, 68,
1176-1182.
Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). The general self-efficacy scale:
Multicultural validation studies. The Journal of Psychology, 139, 439-457.
Maher, E. J., & Fenlon, D. (2010). The psychosocial issues of survivorship in breast
cancer. Advances in Breast Cancer, 7(2), 17-22.
Manne, S. L., Ostroff, J. S., Norton, T. R., Fox, K., Grana, G., & Goldstein, L. (2006).
Cancer-specific self-efficacy and psychosocial and functional adaptation to early
stage breast cancer. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 2, 145-154.
Manne, S. L., Taylor, K. L., Dougherty, J., & Kemeny, N. (1997). Supportive and
negative responses in the partner relationship: Their association with psychological adjustment among individuals with cancer. Journal of Behavioral Medicine,
20, 101-125.
Matthews, E. E., & Cook, P. F. (2009). Relationships among optimism, well-being,
self-transcendence, coping, and social support. Psycho-Oncology, 18, 716-726.
Merluzzi, T. V., & Sanchez, M. A. M. (1997). Assessment of self-efficacy and coping with cancer: Development and validation of the Cancer Behavior Inventory.
Health Psychology, 16, 163-170.
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
Hoffman et al.
265
National Cancer Institute Dictionary of Cancer Terms. (2012). Survivorship. Retrieved
from http://www.cancer.gov/dictionary/CdrID=445089
Nord, C., Mykletun, A., Thorsen, L., Bjoro, T., & Fossa, S. D. (2005). Self-reported
health and use of health care services in long term cancer survivors. International
Journal of Cancer, 114, 307-316.
Osborn, R. L., Demoncada, A. C., & Feuerstein, M. (2006). Psychosocial interventions for depression, anxiety, and quality of life in cancer survivors: Meta-analyses.
International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 36, 13-34.
Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of
meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 257-301.
Park, C. L., Edmondon, D., Fenster, J. R., & Blank, T. O. (2008). Meaning making
and psychological adjustment following cancer: The mediating roles of growth,
life meaning, and restored just-world beliefs. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 76, 863-875.
Park, C. L., & Folkman, S. (1997). Meaning in the context of stress and coping.
Review of General Psychology, l, 115-144.
Pinquart, M., Frohlich, C., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2007). Optimism, pessimism, and
change of psychological well-being in cancer patients. Psychology, Health, &
Medicine, 12, 421-432.
Pinquart, M., Nixdorf-Haenchen, J., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2005). Associations of age
and cancer with individual goal commitment. Applied Developmental Science, 9,
54-66.
Porter, L. S., Keefe, F. J., McBride, C. M., Pollak, K., Fish, L., & Garst, J. (2002).
Perceptions of patients’ self-efficacy for managing pain and lung cancer symptoms: Correspondence between patients and family caregivers. Pain, 98, 169-178.
Raque-Bogdan, T. L., Torrey, C. L., Lewis, B. L., & Borges, N. J. (in press). Counseling health psychology: Assessing health psychology training within counseling
psychology doctoral programs. The Counseling Psychologist.
Roberts, K. J., Lepore, S. J., & Helgeson, V. (2006). Social-cognitive correlates of
adjustment to prostate cancer. Psycho-Oncology, 15, 183-192.
Robinson, L. (2004). Cancer survivorship: Unique opportunities for research. Cancer
Epidemiology, 13, 1093.
Rottmann, N., O’Dalton, S. O., Christensen, J., Frederiksen, K., & Johansen, C.
(2010). Self-efficacy, adjustment style and well-being in breast cancer patients: A
longitudinal study. Quality of Life Research, 6, 827-836.
Rowland, J. H. (2008). What are cancer survivors telling us? The Cancer Journal,
14, 361-368.
Schou, I., Ekeberg, Ø., Sandvik, L., Hjermstad, M. J., & Ruland, C. M. (2005). Multiple predictors of health-related quality of life in early stage breast cancer. Data
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
266
The Counseling Psychologist 41(2)
from a year follow-up study compared with the general population. Quality of Life
Research, 14(8), 1813-1823.
Schroevers, M. J., Kraaji, V., & Garnefski, N. (2011). Cancer patients’ experience of
positive and negative changes due to the illness: Relationships with psychological
well-being, coping, and goal reenactment. Psycho-Oncology, 20, 165-172.
Schroevers, M. J., Ranchor, A. V., & Sanderman, R. (2004). The role of age at the
onset of cancer in relation to survivors’ long-term adjustment: A controlled comparison over an eight-year period. Psycho-Oncology, 13, 740-752.
Schwarzer, R., Boehmer, S., Luszczynska, A., Mohamed, N. E., & Knoll, N. (2005).
Dispositional self-efficacy as a personal resource factor in coping after surgery.
Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 807-818.
Shaha, M., & Bauer-Wu, S. (2009). Early adulthood uprooted: Transitoriness in
young women with breast cancer. Cancer Nursing, 32, 246-255.
Sheu, H., & Lent, R. W. (2009). A social cognitive perspective on well-being in educational and work settings: Cross-cultural considerations. International Journal
for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 9, 45-60.
Spelten, E. R., Spranger, M. A. G., & Verbeek, J. A. M. (2002). Factors reported to
influence the return to work of cancer survivors: A literature review. PsychoOncology, 11, 124-131.
Stanton, A. L., Danoff-Burg, S., Cameron, C. L., Bishop, M., Collins, C. A.,
Kirk, S. B., . . . Twillman, R. (2000). Emotionally expressive coping predicts
psychological and physical adjustment to breast cancer. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 68, 875-882.
Super, D. E. (1955). Transition: From vocational guidance to counseling psychology.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 2, 3-9.
Tomich, P. L., & Helgeson, V. S. (2002). Five years later: A cross-sectional comparison of breast cancer survivors with healthy women. Psycho-Oncology, 11,
154-169.
Tomich, P. L., & Helgeson, V. S. (2006). Cognitive Adaptation Theory and breast
cancer recurrence: Are there limits? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 980-987.
Traeger, L., Penedo, F. J., Gonzalez, J. S., Dahn, J. R., Lechner, S. C., Schneiderman,
N., & Antoni, M. H. (2009). Illness perceptions and emotional well-being in men
treated for localized prostate cancer. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 67(5),
389-397.
Wang, C. (Ed.). (2000). Clinical radiation oncology: Indications, techniques, and
results (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Wenzel, L. B., Donnelly, J. P., Fowler, J. M., Habbal, R., Taylor, T. H., Aziz, N., &
Cella, D. (2002). Resilience, reflection, and residual stress in ovarian cancer survivorship: A gynecologic oncology group study. Psycho-Oncology, 11, 142-153.
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013
Hoffman et al.
267
Wolff, S. N. (2007). The burden of cancer survivorship. In M. Feuerstein (Ed.), Handbook of cancer survivorship (pp. 7-18). New York: Springer.
Zabora, J., BrintzenhofeSzoc, K., Curbow, B., Hooker, C., & Piantados, S. (2001).
The prevalence of psychological distress by cancer site. Psycho-Oncology, 10,
19-28.
Bios
Mary Ann Hoffman is a professor of counseling psychology in the Department of
Counseling, Higher Education, and Special Education, University of Maryland. Her
interests include the interface between health and psychological well-being, counselor development, training, and supervision, and bioecological factors contributing
to well-being. She is a recipient of the Dorothy Booz Black Award for Outstanding
Achievement in Health Counseling Psychology and author of Counseling Clients
with HIV: Assessment, Intervention and Prevention.
Robert W. Lent is a professor of counseling psychology in the Department of
Counseling, Higher Education, and Special Education, University of Maryland. His
interests include applications of social cognitive theory to academic and career
behavior; counselor development, training, and supervision; and psychological
health. He is co-editor of the Handbook of Counseling Psychology (1st through 4th
editions) and Career Development and Counseling: Putting Theory and Research to
Work (1st and 2nd editions).
Trisha L. Raque-Bogdan is a doctoral candidate in the counseling psychology program in the Department of Counseling, Higher Education, and Special Education,
University of Maryland. She is currently a pre-doctoral intern at the University of
Maryland Counseling Center. Her research interest is in vocational, health, and positive psychology and their intersection.
Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 1, 2013