Cited by 106Cancer survivorship and careWomen's cancer prevention and managementFamily Support in Illness

Uncertainty, appraisal and quality of life

Padilla, G. V., Mishel, M. H., Grant, M. M.·1992·Quality of Life Research

Abstract

This study evaluates the influence of different factors in the adaptation process activated by uncertainty in illness on health-related quality of life. The sample included 100 women (mean age = 52.1 years) receiving treatment for newly diagnosed (M = 5.1 months) gynaecological cancer (38 cervical, 26 ovarian, 24 endometrial, 7 uterine, 4 vulvar, and 1 vaginal). Stepwise regression analyses identified mood states, ambiguity about illness-wellness state, danger-focused appraisal and mastery as key predictors of four health-related quality of life scores. The variance accounted for by those variables is reflected in cumulative multiple R2 of 0.56 for total quality of life score, 0.57 for psychosocial well-being, 0.235 for physical well-being and 0.25 for disease/symptom distress. These variances do not reflect the contribution of age, time since diagnosis, metastasis and stage of cancer which were forced to enter the regression equation first. The latter set of variables accounted for a smaller portion of the variance in health-related quality of life (R2 = 0.03-0.195). Coping strategy did not predict health-related quality of life. These findings provide beginning support for conceptualizing health-related quality of life as the outcome of an adaptation process explained by the uncertainty in illness theory. However, uncertainty in illness theory may not be sufficient to predict quality of life outcomes. Future research should consider the addition of discrepancy theory to guide the selection or development of a health-related quality of life measure, to account for the perceived discrepancy between actual experience and expected well-being.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf00635615

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 26 · Cited by 106

Authors
Padilla, G. V., Mishel, M. H., & Grant, M. M.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US)
  • City Of Hope National Medical Center (US)
Venue
Quality of Life Research
Published
1992-06
Volume
1
Issue
3
Pages
155-165
ISSN
  • 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2649
OpenAlex
W2049594515
Cited by
106
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
0.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (2s07rr006014-03)
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (3NR011030451)
  • National Center for Research Resources (RR06014)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Family Support in Illness
Keywords
health-related quality of life, gynecologic cancer, women with cancer, mood states, mastery, coping strategies, psychosocial well-being, physical well-being, symptom distress, adaptation to illness
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Affect, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Genital Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Nursing Theory, Quality of Life, Regression Analysis, Nursing Methodology Research

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