Cited by 192Cancer survivorship and carePosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchCancer-related cognitive impairment studies

The valence of attentional bias and cancer-related rumination in posttraumatic stress and posttraumatic growth among women with breast cancer

Chan, Michelle W. C., Ho, Samuel M. Y., Tedeschi, Richard G., Leung, Carmen W. L.·2011·Psycho-Oncology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of self-reported attentional bias on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms and posttraumatic growth (PTG) through the potential mediator of cancer-related rumination. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey design was used and women with breast cancer (N=170) were recruited. MEASURES: Attentional biases, cancer-related ruminations, PTSD symptoms, and PTG were assessed. RESULTS: Negative attentional bias and negative cancer-related rumination were positively related to PTSD symptoms following cancer diagnosis and treatments, but they were not related to PTG. Positive attentional bias and positive cancer-related rumination were positively related to PTG, but positive attentional bias was not related to PTSD symptoms. Findings showed that negative cancer-related rumination partially mediated the relationship between negative attentional bias and PTSD symptoms, while positive cancer-related rumination partially mediated the relationship between positive attentional bias and PTG. CONCLUSION: Findings support that there are differential trajectories to PTSD symptoms and PTG with respect to different valence of habitual attentional style and cancer-related rumination. They may serve as potential therapeutic leverages in the alleviation of PTSD symptoms and facilitation of PTG following cancer diagnosis and treatments.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pon.1761

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chan, M. W. C., Ho, S. M. Y., Tedeschi, R. G., & Leung, C. W. L.
Affiliations
  • Queen Elizabeth Hospital (CN)
  • University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • University of North Carolina at Charlotte (US)
Corresponding author
Chan, Michelle W. C.
Venue
Psycho-Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-04
Volume
20
Issue
5
Pages
544-552
ISSN
  • 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1611
OpenAlex
W2086536991
Cited by
192
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Keywords
attentional bias, post-traumatic stress disorder, posttraumatic growth, breast cancer, women, mediation, cancer diagnosis and treatment
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Attention, Breast Neoplasms, Cognition, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Psychological Tests, Regression Analysis, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review