Waiting is the hardest part: a model of uncertainty navigation in the context of health news

Effects of a case management program on patients with oral precancerous lesions: a randomized controlled trial

“…According to the uncertainty navigation model [21] and the Guided Care Model [20,22,23], self-management significantly helps people to navigate the difficult diagnostic process (awaiting results of a biopsy) while learning more about their health problems. The level of patient satisfaction provided by the Guided Care Model has been addressed in chronic disease care [17,18,20].…”

Perceptions of romantic partners’ responsiveness during a period of stressful uncertainty.

“…Waiting for uncertain news is a common and typically anxiety-provoking experience (Sweeny & Cavanaugh, 2012). Research demonstrates that whether awaiting biopsy results, a grade on a midterm, or a decision from a journal editor, people report high levels of distress as they wait (Poole, 1997;Sweeny et al, 2016).…”

“…People have two options for managing their expectations about the uncertain future: embrace hope and optimism (termed positive expectation management) or brace for the worst (Sweeny & Cavanaugh, 2012). We examined associations between use of these strategies and perceived responsiveness in both "directions"-that is, people may shift their strategies when they perceive their partner as being responsive, and the strategies they choose may sway their perceptions (or even experiences) of responsiveness.…”

“…A growing body of research identifies cognitive and behavioral strategies that people attempt to utilize to navigate these stressful waiting periods (Sweeny & Cavanaugh, 2012;Sweeny et al, 2016), yet people have difficulty effectively maintaining psychological and even physical well-being as they wait, particularly as the moment of feedback approaches (Boivin & Lancastle, 2010;Howell & Sweeny, 2016;Sweeny et al, 2016). Although research has identified few successful strategies for easing the distress associated with waiting (cf.…”

What makes a ‘good’ review article? Some reflections and recommendations

“…A good review must be informative about the field and focus on a topic in a way that has not been done before. All reviews published in HPR fulfil this criterion, but good illustrations are DeFrank and Brewer's (2010) proposed model of false positives for mammography, Sweeny and Cavanaugh's (2011) model on uncertainty and responses to health news, DiMatteo, Haskard-Zolnierek and Martin's (2011) meta-analytically derived three-factor model of patient practice and Hall and Fong's (2010) rejoinder on their temporal self-regulation theory and associated commentaries (Borland, 2010;Cameron, 2010;Sallis, 2010;Webb & Sheeran, 2010). In contrast, descriptive reviews of a particular field may have some value in terms of summarising the state-of-the-literature, but its impact will be limited as it offers no new perspective on the field.…”