Cited by 33Cancer survivorship and careWomen's cancer prevention and managementGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Self‐stigma and quality of life among Chinese American breast cancer survivors: A serial multiple mediation model

Open access
Chu, Qiao, Wong, Celia C. Y., Chen, Lingjun, Shin, Lilian J., Chen, Leqi, Lu, Qian·2021·Psycho-Oncology

Abstract

Objective: Despite the increasing scholarly attention toward self‐stigma among Asian breast cancer survivors, research is limited about the underlying psychological mechanisms by which self‐stigma may influence quality of life for this population. The present study investigated how self‐stigma is associated with quality of life among Chinese American breast cancer survivors by examining the serial mediating effects of concerns about breast cancer, self‐efficacy for coping with cancer, and depressive symptoms. Methods: Chinese American breast cancer survivors ( n = 112) completed a questionnaire packet assessing self‐stigma related to breast cancer, concerns about breast cancer, self‐efficacy for coping with cancer, depressive symptoms, and quality of life. Path analysis was conducted to test the hypothesized serial multiple mediation model. Results: The hypothesized model was supported: self‐stigma was negatively associated with quality of life through concerns about breast cancer, self‐efficacy, and depressive symptoms. After the mediators were controlled for, the direct effect of self‐stigma on quality of life was no longer significant. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that concerns about breast cancer, self‐efficacy for coping, and depressive symptoms are important pathways through which self‐stigma may influence quality of life among Chinese American breast cancer survivors. Healthcare practitioners should be aware of survivors' self‐stigma and make efforts to alleviate survivors' excessive cancer concerns, facilitate their self‐efficacy, and offer emotional support to improve quality of life for this population.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pon.5590

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In Chinese society and culture, internalization of patient stereotypes, direct rejection by others, and discrimination in the social system have contributed to the creation of societal self-isolation.

    “In the development of Chinese society and culture, the internalization of patient stereotypes, direct rejection by others, and discrimination in the social system have contributed to the creation of societal self-isolation [51,52].”

    From Symptom Experiences before Medical Help-Seeking and Psychosocial Responses of Patients with Esophageal Cancer: A Qualitative Study. (2023) · cites this paper as [51]

    The Background says Chinese American breast cancer survivors internalize negative beliefs about cancer, and the Discussion describes sensitivity to others’ avoidance. The Measures section includes self-estrangement as an item on the self-stigma scale. But the paper does not establish direct rejection or systemic discrimination as causes of societal self-isolation; its findings concern self-stigma and quality of life in Chinese American breast cancer survivors. Page numbers were not supplied. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chu, Q., Wong, C. C. Y., Chen, L., Shin, L. J., Chen, L., & Lu, Q.
Affiliations
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
  • The College at Brockport, State University of New York Brockport New York USA
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
  • Department of Health Disparities Research The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston Texas USA
Corresponding author
Chu, Qiao
Venue
Psycho-Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-11-27
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
392-399
ISSN
  • 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1611
OpenAlex
W3100028465
Cited by
33
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2
FWCI
1.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (K99CA267678, CA180896, R01CA180896, P30CA016672)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
self-stigma, breast cancer survivors, quality of life, Chinese Americans, self-efficacy, depressive symptoms, serial mediation
MeSH terms
Cancer Survivors, Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Asian, Breast Neoplasms, Depression, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Efficacy, Social Stigma

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