Influence of Coping Style on Symptom Interference Among Adult Recipients of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Abstract

An intervention to teach alternate coping strategies should be implemented prior to treatment and tested for prevention of symptom-related life interference.

3233 Safe in the bubble, out into the unknown: Returning home following allogeneic stem cell transplantation: A phenomenological study

“…Whilst endeavouring to maintain a positive attitude concurs with the findings of Schoulte et al (2011), who defined positivity as emotion focussed coping there is variance with the other two forms of coping styles they identified. Instrumental coping (characterised by information gathering) was found by Schoulte et al (2011) to be an adaptive coping style employed to manage a variety of physical symptoms associated with SCT.…”

Perceptions of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation and Coping Predict Emotional Distress During the Acute Phase After Transplantation

“…Whilst this was expected for avoidance-based styles, it was not expected for those that are considered helpful in the wider literature such as planning and support-seeking (Carver et al, 1989;Taylor & Stanton, 2007). Studies examining the post-acute period of HSCT have not observed reliable effects of these latter styles (Schoulte et al, 2011;Wells et al, 2009) but it is possible that the circumstances of acute HSCT may render many coping strategies ineffective or counterproductive. For example, an adverse effect of planning has been noted in acute cancer care but not subsequent periods (Carver et al, 1993).…”

“…Each style comprises two items rated on a 4-point Likert scale with total scores from 0-6 as a continuous variable (higher scores denoting more frequent use) (Carver, 1997). The instrument has good construct, concurrent, and predictive validity in relation to emotional well-being and adjustment in different clinical populations including HSCT (Bautista & Erwin, 2013;Cooper, Katona, Orrell, & Livingston, 2008;Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004;Hooper, Baker, & McNutt, 2013;Knowles, Cook, & Tribbick, 2013;Meyer, 2001;Schoulte et al, 2011). Some limitations to reliability have been reported with Cronbach's α between 0.50-0.90 and test-retest reliability coefficients between 0.42-0.89 (6-8 weeks) (Carver, 1997;Carver et al, 1989).…”

“…Reliability for some Brief COPE scales in particular was variable and at times limited. However, Cronbach's alpha is less suitable for small scales (such as the two-item Brief COPE scales) (Field, 2013) and such low coefficients are common in coping research even when larger groupings are used, including in HSCT (de Ridder, 1997;Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004;Schoulte et al, 2011;Wells et al, 2009). …”

“…However, these studies have focussed on the recovery period several months after HSCT (Schoulte, Lohnberg, Tallman, & Altmaier, 2011;Wells, Booth-Jones, & Jacobsen, 2009;Wu et al, 2012), therefore, the impact of coping during the acute phase remains unclear since coping styles can have different effects at different times and circumstances (Taylor & Stanton, 2007). The selfregulatory model refers to illness but HSCT is a medical procedure where it is treatment-related toxicity that poses the greatest challenge in the acute phase.…”