Considering the importance of coping strategies and resilience in adapting to the stress caused by cancer, the objective of this research is to explore which coping strategies are the most used, in order to know whether different groups of levels of resilience and an appropriate coping style are related to a higher quality of life and better adaptation to the disease. There were 74 participants with cancer in this study (79.7% of them were women) ranging in age from 29 to 85 years ( M = 50.9). Different instruments were used to measure the resilience construct (ER-20 items Resilience Scale), coping strategies (Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire-Short) and quality of life (General Health Questionnaire). People with higher resilience showed higher scores in the use of adaptive strategies, being acceptance and positive revaluation the most frequent ones. Regarding perception of quality of life, people with lower resilience showed statistically significant differences in the dimensions of pain and general health, which were likewise the most common ones for people with lower resilience. A significant association has been demonstrated between resilience and an adaptive coping, which at the same time are positively linked to quality of life of people with cancer. This study provides information about how different groups of resilience levels are related with coping and quality of life in people with cancer. It could be useful information for psychologists in the oncological area who have to take decisions in the clinical context. A practical consequence would involve trying to modify the type of coping, as well as increasing the level of resilience in people with cancer, in order to achieve a better adjustment to the disease.

The impact that cancer disease can have on individuals varies depending, among other things, on their personal characteristics, so it is important to explore aspects such as the personality traits in relation to mental health in people with cancer. The aim of this study was to analyse the relationship between neuroticism, extraversion and mental health in people with cancer. Besides, this study also explored differences in mental health when combining extraversion and neuroticism levels. One hundred and seventy people who had been diagnosed with different types of cancer (breast cancer, lung, colon, gynaecological cancer and others) composed the sample. Almost all of them (92.9%) had received oncological treatment. The GHQ-12 scale was used to assess the mental health and the 60-item NEO Five-Factor Inventory was applied in order to measure neuroticism and extraversion in participants. A hierarchic lineal regression model was conducted. Neuroticism and extraversion did not show any interaction effect, although a partial mediation was observed in relation to mental health outcomes. Given the significant correlation between neuroticism and extraversion with mental health ( r = .59, p < .001; r = −.41, p < .001), both personality traits were combined, resulting in a classification of four different personality profiles ( F (4;165) = 19.85; p < .001). Results in this study have shown that low levels of neuroticism and high levels of extraversion are related to positive health outcomes. They seem to be protective factors with respect to the mental health in people with cancer. The knowledge of the positive effects of these aspects contributes to the comprehension of mental health in the oncological sample, which should be considered in order to design and guide particular therapeutic interventions adapted to each person.

Considering the importance of psychological variables on health-related processes, this study investigated the role of resilience and coping strategies in relation to health. The aim of this research was to explore the underlying association between these aspects for the better understanding of the effect of psychosocial variables on mental health in cancer. This information could lead to the design of adapted psychological interventions in cancer. Participants with different diagnosis of cancer were recruited (N = 170). They came from the Spanish Association Against Cancer of Biscay. Resilience was measured with the 10 items Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, coping with the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire and mental health was measured as a global indicator through the SF-12 and the GHQ-12. A structural equation model (SEM) was conducted to test the effects between the constructs. Results showed that resilience and coping were significantly associated. Results reflected an absence of significant correlation between adaptive and disadaptive coping strategies. Resilience was the factor that most correlated with health outcomes (β = –.45, p < .001). However, disadaptive coping strategies did not correlate with resilience or mental health indicators. Findings in this study underscore the positive contribution of high levels of resilience and an adaptive coping on participants´ level of health. Disadaptive coping strategies did not reflect any positive relation with resilience or health indicators. Thus, promoting resilience and adaptive coping could be a significant goal for psychosocial and educational interventions in people with cancer.

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic has constituted an unprecedented challenge to society and science and it has provided an unexpected opportunity to explore the effects of a positive intervention in times of adversity and confinement. The goal was to evaluate the effects of a theory driven group intervention to cultivate mental health and flourishing. Design: A pre post design with three groups (151 individuals) was conducted, including an experimental group that received the intervention during the pandemic, a pre-COVID intervention group, and a COVID control group. Main Outcome Measures: Based on Keyes' concept of positive mental health, measures of subjective, psychological and social well-being were obtained, as well as an indicator of psychological distress (GHQ12). Results: Intervention groups showed an increase in well-being and the COVID control group a decrease. Change scores revealed significant differences. Overall percentage of individuals at risk of ill health in baseline was 25.2%, but after the intervention, the COVID control group reached 64.1%. Conclusions: Despite the limitations, the present findings suggest that interventions to sustain and improve mental health in times of crisis and adversity can be an effective approach.The COVID-19 pandemic constitutes an unprecedented challenge to society and science. For psychology and other health professionals, researchers, and academicians, it is a trial to test our ability to fulfil our core mission: "to improve the condition of both the individual and society" (European Federation of Psychologist Associations (EFPA), 2005), and/or to "benefit society and improve people's lives" (American Psychological Association (APA), 2012). In the so-called "normal times", psychology's quest for

This study explored the relationship between emotional control, resilience, and mental health in cancer. Patients with cancer were recruited ( n = 170). Courtauld Scale of Emotional Control, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, and the General Health Questionnaire were selected. Assuming the absence of interaction among the variables, they were analyzed separately. Four groups resulted, finding statistically significant differences ( F(4, 165) = 18.03; p < 0.001). High resilience and low emotional control seem to be protective attributes, and high emotional control has demonstrated to be a risk factor for mental health. Considering differences in cancer-related psychological variables could derive in personalized psychotherapeutic interventions.