Openness to Discuss Cancer in the Nuclear Family

Mesters, Ilse; Borne, H van den; McCormick, Laura J.; Pruyn, J.F.A.; Boer, Maarten P. de; Imbos, Tjaart

doi:10.1097/00006842-199705000-00010

Cited by 121 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is in agreement with the finding that cancer patients who perceive communication as being more open are less depressed and anxious, and perceive less loss of control and less loneliness. 28,42 Our finding that more tumor-related physical symptoms were associated with more depressive symptoms after treatment is in line with the results of other studies. 10,[43][44][45] For instance, more advanced cancer was associated with more depressive symptoms after treatment.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…25 Social support was measured as that received (Social Support List Interactions 26 ) and that available (Social Provisions Scale of the social network (formal and informal network), and as openness to discuss cancer in the nuclear family. 28,29 Coping was measured with the short version of the Utrecht Coping List (UCL). 30,31 Locus of control was measured with the short version of the Cancer Locus of Control Scale.…”

Section: Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prediction of depression 6 months to 3 years after treatment of head and neck cancer

Leeuw¹,

Graeff

Ros³

et al. 2001

Head & Neck

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction of depression 6 months to 3 years after treatment of head and neck cancer

Leeuw¹,

Graeff

Ros³

et al. 2001

Head & Neck

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Firstly, other variables should be included, such as demographics, family history and cancer history [21,30,31], coping style and personality [30,[32][33][34], illness perception [35,36], and family communication [37]. Secondly, the question could be raised whether current general distress measures are sensitive enough to measure the subtle impact of DNA results on the various life domains of the counsellees.…”

Section: The Genetic-uncertainty-causes-distress Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

The counsellees' view of an unclassified variant in BRCA1/2: recall, interpretation, and impact on life

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Unclassified variants (UVs, variants of uncertain clinical significance) are found in 13% of all BRCA1/2 mutation analyses. Little is known about the counsellees' recall and interpretation of a UV, and its psychosocial/medical impact.Method: Retrospective semi-structured interviews with open questions and five-point Likert scales were carried out in 24 counsellees who received a UV result 3 years before (sd ¼ 1:9).Results: Sixty-seven percent (16/24) recalled the UV result as a non-informative DNA result; 29% recalled a pathogenic result. However, 79% of all counsellees interpreted the UV result as a genetic predisposition for cancer. Variations in recall and interpretation were unexplained by demographics, cancer history of themselves and relatives, and communication aspects of UV disclosure. Sixty-seven percent perceived genetic counselling as completed, whereas 71% expected to receive new DNA information. Although most counsellees reported that UV disclosure had changed their lives in general little, one in three counsellees reported large changes in specific life domains, especially in surveillance behavior and medical decisions. Ten out of 19 participants who interpreted the UV as pathogenic had undergone preventive surgery against none of the 5 counsellees who interpreted the UV as non-informative.Conclusion: Counsellors and researchers need to address discrepancies between the counsellees' factual recall and their subjective interpretation of non-informative BRCA1/2-test results.

show abstract

“…(4) Openness Scale [32], a 9-item questionnaire measuring the difficulty (lower scores) in speaking about cancer with family members.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Supportive-Expressive Group Therapy in Breast Cancer Patients with Affective Disorders: A Pilot Study

Grassi

Sabato²,

Rossi³

et al. 2009

Psychother Psychosom

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: So far, no study has tested supportive-expressive group therapy (SEGT) in cancer patients with an established psychiatric diagnosis. The aim of this 6-month follow-up study was to evaluate breast cancer patients with an ICD-10 diagnosis of affective syndromes participating in SEGT and a group of breast cancer patients with no ICD-10 diagnosis. Methods: A total of 214 patients were examined in the screening phase (T0) using the ICD-10, the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), the Mini-Mental Adjustment-to-Cancer Scale (Mini-MAC), the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, the Openness Scale and the Cancer Worries Inventory (CWI). Those with an ICD-10 diagnosis of affective syndromes received 16–24 sessions of SEGT (90-min sessions, once a week), while those with no ICD-10 diagnosis were followed up. A second assessment for both sam- ples took place 6 months later (T1). Results: Seventy-eight (36.4%) patients were positive for an ICD-10 diagnosis of affective syndromes at T0, while 127 (59.4%) did not meet any ICD-10 diagnosis. Among the former, 54 patients participated in the SEGT. At T1, significant differences were observed in all the dimensions of the BSI, hopelessness and anxious preoccupation subscales of the Mini-MAC, the Openness Scale and the CWI. No variable at T0 was a predictor of BSI distress as measured at T1. Among those with no ICD-10 diagnosis at T0, 8.2% were positive for affective disorders at the 6-month follow-up. Conclusions: This study suggested that SEGT is effective for breast cancer patients with affective disorders, and indicates the need for prospective evaluations in order to identify those who may develop psychopathology over time.

show abstract

Openness to Discuss Cancer in the Nuclear Family

Abstract: The scale's construction and subsequent analysis show that open discussion of problems (related to cancer) in the family can be measured reliably with an eight-item instrument. Additional validation of the scale is indicated.

Cited by 121 publications

References 19 publications

Prediction of depression 6 months to 3 years after treatment of head and neck cancer

Prediction of depression 6 months to 3 years after treatment of head and neck cancer

The counsellees' view of an unclassified variant in BRCA1/2: recall, interpretation, and impact on life

Effects of Supportive-Expressive Group Therapy in Breast Cancer Patients with Affective Disorders: A Pilot Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About