Empirical validation of the integrative psychological group intervention for women with breast cancer – preliminary results

Ivana Novakov; Svetlana Popovic-Petrovic; Tihomir Dugandžija; Milanka Tatić

doi:10.2298/VSP171011004N

Ivana Novakov Oncology Institute of Vojvodina, Sremska Kamenica, Serbia
Svetlana Popovic-Petrovic Oncology Institute of Vojvodina, Sremska Kamenica, Serbia; University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Medicine, Novi Sad, Serbia
Tihomir Dugandžija Oncology Institute of Vojvodina, Sremska Kamenica, Serbia; University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Medicine, Novi Sad, Serbia
Milanka Tatić Oncology Institute of Vojvodina, Sremska Kamenica, Serbia; University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Medicine, Novi Sad, Serbia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/VSP171011004N

Keywords: breast neoplasms, postoperative period, integrative oncology, psychotherapy group, surveys and questionnaires, women, treatment outcome

Abstract

Abstract

Background/Aim. Breast cancer diagnosis is an extremely stressful life event that brings a number of physical and psychological challenges. However, supportive and psycho-educational group interventions can significantly decrease psychological distress in patients. The aim of this study was to empirically validate the effects of the integrative psychological group intervention, regarding the affective state of women who underwent breast cancer surgery at the Oncology Institute of Vojvodina. Methods. This study was conducted on a sample of 30 women, with the average age of 53.17 years (standard deviation – SD = 10.09). Following the surgical intervention, the inpatients participated in an integrative group session consisting of the following parts: 1) supportive-expressive, 2) psycho-educational and 3) health-educational. Before the session, participants filled in a demographic data questionnaire, measures of positive and negative affect (PANAS), optimism (LOT-R), hope (AHS), neuroticism (BFI) and symptoms of depression (DASS-21). At the end of the group sessions, the participants filled in the PANAS again. Results. A paired-samples t-test showed that following an intervention, a statistically significant increase in positive affect had occurred (t(29) = -4.44, p < 0.001). For negative affect, the t-test also yields the statistically significant results (t(29) = 5.60, p < 0.001), showing that intervention led to a significant decrease in negative affect. The nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test also confirmed these results. The multiple regression analysis (F (4, 25) = 3.46, p = 0.02) showed that high neuroticism and low symptoms of depression significantly predicted a greater increase in positive affect following the session. Another regression analysis (F (4, 25) = 3.32, p = 0.03) showed that the higher symptoms of depression and, marginally, higher hope significantly predicted a greater decrease in negative affect. Conclusion. Our results showed that the integrative psychological group intervention had positive short-term effects regarding the affective state of women who underwent breast cancer surgery, and that different psychological variables can play a significant role in prediction of changes in patients’ affect.

References

REFERENCES

Mehnert A, Koch U. Psychological comorbidity and health-related quality of life and its association with awareness, utilization, and need for psychosocial support in a cancer register-based sample of long-term breast cancer survivors. J Psychosom Res 2008; 64(4): 383–91.

Deshields T, Tibbs T, Fan M, Taylor M. Differences in patterns of depression after treatment for breast cancer. Psychooncology 2006; 15(5): 398–406.

Burgess C, Cornelius V, Love S, Graham J, Richards M, Ramirez A. Depression and anxiety in women with early breast cancer: five year observational cohort study. BMJ 2005; 330(7493): 702.

Jadoulle V, Rokbani L, Ogez D, Maccioni J, Lories G, Bruchon-Schweitzer M, et al. Coping and adapting to breast cancer: a six-month prospective study. Bull Cancer 2006;93(7): 67–72.

Bang S, Park SH, Kang HG, Jue JI, Cho IH, Yun YH, et al. Changes in quality of life during palliative chemotherapy for solid cancer. Support Care Cancer 2005; 13(7): 515–21.

Iconomou G, Mega V, Koutras A, Iconomou AV, Kalofonos HP. Prospective assessment of emotional distress, cognitive func-tion, and quality of life in patients with cancer treated with chemotherapy. Cancer 2004; 101(2): 404–11.

Meyerowitz BE. Psychosocial correlates of breast cancer and its treatments. Psychol Bull 1980; 87(1): 108–31.

Schou BI, Kåresen R, Smeby NA, Espe R, Sørensen EM, Amundsen M, et al. Effects of a Psychoeducational Versus a Support Group Intervention in Patients With Early-Stage Breast Can-cer: results of a randomized controlled trial. Cancer Nurs 2014; 37(3): 198–207.

Ferlic M, Goldman A, Kennedy BJ. Group counseling in adult patients with advanced cancer. Cancer 1979; 43(2): 760–6.

Vachon MLS, Lyall WA, Rogers J, Cochrane J, Freeman SJ. The Effectiveness of Psychosocial Support during Post-Surgical Treatment of Breast Cancer. Int J Psychiatry Med 1982; 11(4): 365–72.

Weisman AD, Worden JW, Sobel HJ. Psychosocial screening and intervention with cancer patients. Boston, MA: Project Ome-ga; 1980.

Edelman S, Craig A, Kidman AD. Group Interventions with Cancer Patients: efficacy of psychoeducational versus suppor-tive groups. J Psychosoc Oncol 2000; 18(3): 67–85.

Telch CF, Telch MJ. Group coping skills instruction and supportive group therapy for cancer patients: A comparison of strategies. J Consult Clin Psychol 1986; 54(6): 802–8.

Helgeson VS, Cohen S, Schulz R, Yasko J. Group support inter-ventions for women with breast cancer: Who benefits from what?. Health Psychol 2000; 19(2): 107–14.

Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol 1988; 54(6): 1063–70.

Scheier MF, Carver CS, Bridges MW. Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. J Pers Soc Psychol 1994; 67(6): 1063–78.

Snyder CR, Harris C, Anderson JR, Holleran SA, Irving LM, Sigmon ST, et al. The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. J Pers Soc Psychol 1991; 60(4): 570–85.

John OP, Donahue EM, Kentle RL. The big five inventory. Ver-sions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research; 1991.

Lovibond SH, Lovibond PF. Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales. 2nd ed. Sydney: Psychology Foundation of Aus-tralia; 1995.

Henry JD, Crawford JR. The short-form version of the Depres-sion Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21): Construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. Br J Clin Psychol 2011; 44(Pt 2): 227–39.

Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistic. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson; 2013.

Chentsova-Dutton Y, Hanley K. The effects of anhedonia and de-pression on hedonic responses. Psychiatry Res 2010; 179(2): 176–80.

Ng W. Neuroticism and well-being? Let's work on the positive rather than negative aspects. J Positive Psychol 2012; 7(5): 416–26.

Roelofs J, Huibers M, Peeters F, Arntz A. Effects of neuroticism on depression and anxiety: Rumination as a possible mediator. Pers Individ Diff 2008; 44(3): 576–86.