Psychosocial factors as strong predictors of mortality from cancer, ischaemic heart disease and stroke: The Yugoslav prospective study

Grossarth-Maticek, Ronald; J, Bastiaans; Kanazir, D.

doi:10.1016/0022-3999(85)90038-8

Cited by 163 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, the unfavourable effect of emotional defensiveness was strong and persistent. This agrees with previous findings on the favourable effect of more expression and less suppression of emotions on breast cancer progression (Reynolds et al, 2000) and the unfavourable effect of antiemotionality in cancers (Grossarth-Maticek et al, 1985;van der Ploeg et al, 1989). Our scale evaluated control of anger in particular (Swan et al, 1992), and we found it to be associated with the Anger Control trait of the highly validated AX/Scale, which was, however, not predictive on breast cancer survival (In corresponding data concerning localised melanoma (Lehto et al, 2006), we found Anger-in and Anger Control traits to predicted worse survival.).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…It has been claimed that this contributes to less effective coping (Petticrew et al, 2002) or a worse outcome. Also, the antiemotionality trait (emotional defensiveness) is related to suppression and control of emotions (Swan et al, 1992), and has been reported to have an unfavourable effect on cancer progression (Grossarth-Maticek et al, 1985;van der Ploeg et al, 1989). It refers to a tendency to avoid emotions related to other people and to exhibit more anger control and less anger expression, and is the opposite of Type A behaviour (Swan et al, 1992).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Baseline psychosocial predictors of survival in localised breast cancer

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the large number of studies on the impact of psychosocial factors on breast cancer progression, there is no certainty about the contributing factors or processes involved. We investigated the relative impacts of socioeconomic, psychological, and psychosocial factors on survival in breast cancer. A consecutive sample of 102 patients (participation 82%) under 72 years of age with locoregional breast cancer completed validated questionnaires on coping with cancer, emotional expression (anger), perceived available support, noncancer life stresses, and quality of life 3À4 months after diagnosis. Survival times were measured from the date of diagnosis to the date of relapse and further to the date of death or date of last follow-up. Cumulative Cox regression analyses were carried out. After controlling for biological prognostic factors, age, and baseline treatment, longer survival was predicted by a long education and a minimising-related coping, while shorter survival was predicted by emotional defensiveness (antiemotionality), behavioural-escape coping, and a high level of perceived support. A shorter event-free time was also predicted by unemployment and depressive symptoms. Cancer survival is affected by a complex combination of psychosocial factors, among which minimising predicts a favourable prognosis and anger nonexpression and escape behaviour an unfavourable prognosis. Higher socioeconomic status is associated with longer survival. High scores in well-being scales may reflect emotional nonexpression.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Baseline psychosocial predictors of survival in localised breast cancer

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies confirmed a high prevalence of demoralization among patients with medical disorders, especially with life-threatening or disabling disorders [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] . Demoralization was also found to precede the onset of serious diseases, such as cancer, ischemic heart disease and stroke 1,6,8 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Demoralization was also found to precede the onset of serious diseases, such as cancer, ischemic heart disease and stroke 1,6,8 . Despite its clinical and prognostic relevance, demoralization has not been adequately recognized by traditional psychiatric classifications and very few dimensional instruments have been specifically developed for its assessment 9 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subtyping demoralization in the medically ill by cluster analysis

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ITALY ABSTRACT -Background and Objectives:There is increasing interest in the issue of demoralization, particularly in the setting of medical disease. The aim of this investigation was to use both DSM-IV comorbidity and the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research (DCPR) in order to characterize demoralization in the medically ill.Methods: 1700 patients were recruited from 8 medical centers in the Italian Health System and 1560 agreed to participate. They all underwent a cross-sectional assessment with DSM-IV and DCPR structured interviews. 373 patients (23.9%) received a diagnosis of demoralization. Data were submitted to cluster analysis.Results: Four clusters were identified: demoralization and comorbid depression; demoralization and comorbid somatoform/adjustment disorders; demoralization and comorbid anxiety; demoralization without any comorbid DSM disorder. The first cluster included 27.6% of the total sample and was characterized by the presence of DSM-IV mood disorders (mainly major depressive disorder). The second cluster had 18.2% of the cases and contained both DSM-IV somatoform (particularly, undifferentiated somatoform disorder and hypochondriasis) and adjustment disorders. In the third cluster (24.7%), DSM-IV anxiety disorders in comorbidity with demoralization were predominant (particularly, generalized anxiety disorder, agoraphobia, panic disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder). The fourth cluster had 29.5% of the patients and was characterized by the absence of any DSM-IV comorbid disorder.Conclusions: The findings indicate the need of expanding clinical assessment in the medically ill to include the various manifestations of demoralization as encompassed by the DCPR. Subtyping demoralization may yield improved targets for psychosomatic research and treatment trials.

show abstract

“…This was still not of the magnitude generally assumed by epidemiologists to be of public health or clinical importance, but we were suspicious (Coyne, Ranchor, & Palmer, 2010). Examining the supplementary tables kindly provided by the authors, we found most studies were null when they included appropriate statistical controls, with HRs clustering around 1.0, with the striking exception of HRs ranging from 23.8 to 74.2, all from the work of Grossarth-Maticek and colleagues examining the causation of cancer by personality (Grossarth-Maticek, Bastiaans, & Kanazir, 1985;Grossarth-Maticek, Eysenck, & Vetter, 1988). These are extraordinarily strong associations.…”

Section: Editorialmentioning

confidence: 77%

Current issues and new directions inPsychology and Health. The role of the critic in health psychology: The Healthy Scepticism Project

Coyne

2010

Psychology & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychosocial factors as strong predictors of mortality from cancer, ischaemic heart disease and stroke: The Yugoslav prospective study

Cited by 163 publications

References 10 publications

Baseline psychosocial predictors of survival in localised breast cancer

Baseline psychosocial predictors of survival in localised breast cancer

Subtyping demoralization in the medically ill by cluster analysis

Current issues and new directions inPsychology and Health. The role of the critic in health psychology: The Healthy Scepticism Project

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About