Effects of a randomized trial comparing standard and enhanced counseling for men at high risk of prostate cancer as a function of race and monitoring style

Abstract

Despite conflicting guidelines, a significant subset of high-risk men decide to undergo routine prostate cancer screening. Yet, there is a scarcity of available programs, and no studies evaluating interventions to support men in dealing with the psychosocial impact of screening. In this study, one of the first to explore the responses of high-risk men enrolling in a Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment Program (N = 128), patients underwent a prostate cancer risk counseling visit immediately followed by either a cognitive–affective preparation session designed to help them process the information they received or a general health education session. All men in this self-selected sample chose to participate in prostate cancer screening. Men were assessed 3 weeks and 6 months post-counseling. The impact of the enhanced counseling condition on knowledge, perceived risk, expectancies, and intrusive ideation was a function of racial and coping style group. Implications for tailored interventions to maximize preparedness for risk and screening counseling are discussed.

Perceptions of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention on pre‐operative education in China: A qualitative study

“…Our study demonstrated that pre‐operative education was a burden for some patients undergoing PCI, which might be explained by the ‘Blunting Hypothesis’ proposed by Miller et al According to this theory, individuals are categorized into two different coping styles on the basis of how they deal with threat‐related cues: monitors (information seekers) or blunters (information avoiders) 40 . When threatened with a threatening situation, such as PCI (a life‐threatening procedure), monitors benefit from large amounts of information, while blunters benefit from avoiding it because it constitutes a source of stress 41,42 . Hence, it was not surprising that patients with information avoiding style felt pre‐operative education with a lot of information was a burden for them.…”

Effects of monitoring versus blunting on the public’s preferences for information in a hypothetical cancer diagnosis scenario

“…This study is an initial step toward that goal. While some researchers (Miller & Mangan, 1983; Roussi et al., 2018; Williams‐Piehota et al, 2004) have found that tailoring one's information‐delivery style to the needs of the patient results in more positive outcomes, it has yet to be concluded exactly which genetic counseling strategies are most effective for monitors and for blunters. Studies of that nature will contribute to a better understanding of how to maximize the benefits of genetic counseling for each patient.…”

“…Differences between monitors and blunters remain applicable in threatening situations specific to one's health care. Studies show that monitors and blunters differ in their levels of worry and anxiety about conditions such as cancer, question‐asking and dominance during oncological consultations, response to cancer rehabilitation, levels of post‐surgical pain, treatment adherence, desire for information, coping strategies utilized, locus of control, and how they respond to medical stress (Aust et al., 2016; Bennett, Kane, Aramburo, & Varlotta, 2015; Miller, 1987, 1995, 2015; Nordin, Lidén, Hansson, Rosenquist, & Berglund, 2002; Petersson et al., 2002; Rood et al., 2015; Roussi et al., 2018; Sherman, Winch, Koukoulis, & Koelmeyer, 2015; van Zuuren, de Groot, Mulder, & Peter, 1996; van Zuuren & Wolfs, 1991).…”

Maladaptive coping with the infodemic and sleep disturbance in the COVID‐19 pandemic

“…Pragmatic control refers to the ability to respond to a threatening situation to minimize or eliminate its adverse impacts. Studies have identified two information coping styles – monitoring and blunting – that explicate individual differences in dealing with health threats (e.g., Loiselle, 2019; Roussi et al., 2016). High monitors (information seekers) are more prone to maintaining constant vigilance regarding the danger cues embedded in threatening environments than are low monitors (information avoiders), whereas high blunters (distracters) have a greater tendency to avoid sources of threat‐related information than low blunters (non‐distracters).…”