No abstract

Breast cancer treatments have multiple adverse effects, including concerns about body appearance and function that are experienced by most patients. Altered body image negatively affects mental health, social, and relationship functioning. While the relationship with a partner is critical for patients’ psychological wellbeing and partners can promote positive body image, limited research has investigated individual and relational factors affecting the experience of both. This cross-sectional study aimed at (1) exploring rates of body image concerns among breast cancer patients, and (2) identifying dyadic profiles among participating dyads. Couples composed by patients who had undergone surgery and their romantic partners (n = 32) were recruited from the Breast Unit of a hospital in northern Italy. Both partners completed measures of personality characteristics (BFQ-2), psychological distress (HADS), coping flexibility (PACT), dyadic coping (DCQ), and closeness (IOS). Body image (BIS) and adjustment to cancer (Mini-MAC) measures were completed by patients only. K-mean cluster analyses identified 2-cluster solution among patients and partners, respectively. “Active patients” (cluster-1) reported low rates of body image concerns (p < 0.001), anxious preoccupation, negative dyadic coping, and self-oriented stress communication (p < 0.05), compared to “worried patients” (cluster-2). “Comfortable partners” (cluster-1) reported lower anxiety and depression (p < 0.001), self-oriented negative dyadic coping and closeness (p < 0.05) than “uncomfortable partners” (cluster-2). Three different dyadic profiles emerged: functional, dysfunctional, and ambivalent. Significant variations (p < 0.05) by anxiety, depression, and delegating dyadic coping existed. Results indicate there are groups of couples at greater risk for impaired psychological distress and body image concerns, which should be addressed in the context of dyadic psychosocial interventions.

In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, Italy, Spain, New York, and Hong Kong stood out for the ir high rates of infections. Given this scenario, a web-based international multisite and cross-sectional study was conducted between April and May 2020 to investigate the psychological impact of the pandemic and the restrictions imposed by the governments in these countries. We expected similar patterns in European countries, and no significant differences in terms of psychological impairment between Hong Kong (with a previous experience related to SARS, but subjected to restrictions for a longer time) and the other areas. Participants were 1955 adults from the above-mentioned areas. We assessed anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-9), COVID-19-related threats, and perceived burden of restrictive measures. Two-explorative factor analyses (EFAs) with Promax rotation identified COVID-19-related factors: personal physical threat, personal economic threat, global economic threat, and restriction-related burden. ANOVAs studied locations’ differences and two-separate hierarchical multiple regression analyses by location determined whether and how COVID-19-related variables were associated with anxiety and depression, adjusting for age and sex. Italy and Hong Kong showed higher anxiety than Spain (p < 0.05); Hong Kong scored higher on depression than Italy and Spain (p < 0.001), which highlighted the lowest mean-score. New York participants showed the poorest mental health conditions. Anxiety was predicted by restriction-related burden (βNY = 0.242; βHK = 0.116) and personal economic threat (βNY = 0.246; βHK = 0.145) in New York (Adj.R2 = 0.125) and Hong Kong (Adj.R2 = 0.079); by global economic threat (β = 0.199) and restriction-related burden (β = 0.124) in Italy (Adj.R2 = 0.108); and by personal physical threat (β = 0.144) in Spain (Adj.R2 = 0.049). Depression was predicted by restriction-related burden (βNY = 0.313; βHK = 0.120) and personal economic threat (βNY = 0.229; βHK = 0.204) in New York (Adj.R2 = 0.161) and Hong Kong (Adj.R2 = 0.089); by global economic threat (β = 0.209) in Italy (Adj.R2 = 0.149); and no predictors emerged in Spain. Findings could contribute to understanding the specific impact of the pandemic on people’s psychological health in each area, along with the factors that impacted mental health. This information may be useful to implementing prevention interventions in case of restrictions.

Somatic Experiencing® is a bio-psychological method for the treatment and prevention of trauma and chronic stress, which has never been investigated with breast cancer (BC) survivors. Eight weeks of web-based synchronous group sessions were structured between April and June 2022. Potential participants were recruited using a convenience sampling approach and through the collaboration of a public hospital in northern Italy and a non-profit association of BC women. Thirty-five eligible participants were enrolled and divided into an intervention group (n = 21) and a control group (n = 14). Anxiety, depression, distress (HADS), coping strategies (Mini-MAC), trauma reworking skills (PACT), and body image (BIS) were assessed at T0 and after 8 weeks (T1). Qualitative items concerning the most significant moments and learnings were completed at T1 by the intervention group. An independent t-test confirmed no between-group psychological differences at T0. As hypothesized, paired-sample t-tests showed decreases in anxiety, depression, distress (p < 0.05), and anxious preoccupation coping strategy (p < 0.001), but also improvements in forward focus (p < 0.05) and body image (p < 0.001) in the intervention group. The controls worsened over time with increases in hopeless/helplessness (p < 0.001) and avoidance (p < 0.05) coping strategies. Textual analyses extracted five dominant themes that summarized the meaning of the experience for participants. The preliminary results suggest the effectiveness of the intervention.