Cited by 267Cancer survivorship and careMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology

A Non-Randomized Comparison of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction and Healing Arts Programs for Facilitating Post-Traumatic Growth and Spirituality in Cancer Outpatients

Garland, Sheila N., Carlson, Linda E., Cook, Sarah, Lansdell, Laura, Speca, Michael·2007·Supportive Care in Cancer

Abstract

Goals of work The aim of this study was to compare a mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program and a healing through the creative arts (HA) program on measures of post-traumatic growth (PTGI-R), spirituality (FACIT-Sp), stress (SOSI), and mood disturbance (POMS) in cancer patients.Materials and methods A sample of cancer outpatients (MBSR, n = 60; HA, n = 44) with a variety of diagnoses chose to attend either an 8-week MBSR program or a 6-week HA program and were assessed pre- and post-intervention. The majority of participants were female, married, and had breast cancer.Main results Repeated measures analysis of variance indicated that participants in both groups improved significantly over time on overall post-traumatic growth (p = 0.015). Participants in the MBSR group improved on measures of spirituality more than those in the HA group (p = 0.029). Participants in the MBSR group also showed more improvement than those in HA on measures of anxiety (POMS, p = 0.038), anger (POMS, p = 0.004), overall stress symptoms (SOSI, p = 0.041), and mood disturbance (POMS, p = 0.023). Several main effects of time were also observed in both groups. These results were found despite attrition in both groups.Conclusions Both programs may improve facilitation of positive growth after traumatic life experiences for those who choose to participate. MBSR may be more helpful than HA in enhancing spirituality and reducing stress, depression, and anger.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00520-007-0280-5

Cites

49 of 49 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

2 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Garland, S. N., Carlson, L. E., Cook, S., Lansdell, L., & Speca, M.
Affiliations
University of Calgary (CA)
Corresponding author
Carlson, Linda E.
Venue
Supportive Care in Cancer
Published
2007-07-05
Volume
15
Issue
8
Pages
949-961
ISSN
  • 0941-4355 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-7339
OpenAlex
W2017568571
Cited by
266
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 20
FWCI
6.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Supportive Care in Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Health Research Board
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Keywords
mindfulness-based stress reduction, healing arts, creative arts therapy, posttraumatic growth, spirituality, cancer outpatients, stress, mood disturbance, anxiety, anger, breast cancer, psycho-oncology
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Alberta, Ambulatory Care, Art Therapy, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Stress, Psychological, Treatment Outcome, Mind-Body Relations, Metaphysical, Spirituality

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