Cited by 17Cancer survivorship and careMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPalliative and Oncologic Care

Intolerance of uncertainty, experiential avoidance, and trust in physician: a moderated mediation analysis of emotional distress in advanced cancer

Open access
Panjwani, Aliza A., Applebaum, Allison J., Revenson, Tracey A., Erblich, Joel, Rosenfeld, Barry·2024·Journal of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

We tested whether patients' trust in physician moderated the hypothesized indirect association between intolerance of uncertainty (IU; inability to tolerate the unknown) and emotional distress through the mediator, experiential avoidance (EA; efforts to avoid negative emotions, thoughts, or memories), in patients with advanced cancer. The sample included 108 adults with Stage III or IV cancer (53% female; M age = 63 years) recruited from a metropolitan cancer center. All constructs were measured by standardized self-report instruments. The PROCESS macro for SPSS tested the moderated mediation model. IU evidenced significant direct and indirect relationships with anxiety and depressive symptoms. Trust in physician moderated the indirect relationship between IU and anxiety (not depressive symptoms), albeit in an unexpected direction. Specifically, the indirect relationship between IU and anxiety symptoms through EA was significant for those with moderate to high physician trust but not low trust. Controlling for gender or income did not change the pattern of findings. IU and EA may be key intervention targets, particularly in acceptance-or meaning-based interventions for patients with advanced cancer.

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 · 10.1007/s10865-023-00419-5

Cites

68 of 68 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?

  • Experiential avoidance is an important predictor, mediator, and moderator for emotional distress and HRQoL in cancer patients.

    “Experiential avoidance is also an important predictor, mediator, and moderator for emotional distress and HRQoL in cancer patients [13–15].”

    From Peace, equanimity and acceptance in the cancer experience: validation of the German version (PEACE-G) and associations with mental health, health-related quality of life and psychological constructs (2024) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Introduction (Social Cognitive Processing Theory; page unavailable) reports associations between experiential avoidance, distress, and quality of life in cancer populations. The Results (Moderated Mediation; page unavailable) find that experiential avoidance mediates associations with anxiety and depressive symptoms in patients with advanced cancer. But this study identifies trust in physician—not experiential avoidance—as the moderator, and it does not measure HRQoL as an outcome. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Hayes AF (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis, second edition: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Publications.
  2. Hayes SC, Strosahl K, & Wilson K (2011). Acceptance and commitment therapy: The process and practice of mindful change (2nd edition). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Panjwani, A. A., Applebaum, A. J., Revenson, T. A., Erblich, J., & Rosenfeld, B.
Affiliations
  • University Health Network (CA)
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
  • City University of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Panjwani, Aliza A.
Venue
Journal of Behavioral Medicine
Published
2023-06-07
Volume
47
Issue
1
Pages
71-81
ISSN
  • 0160-7715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3521
OpenAlex
W4379599573
Cited by
17
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1
FWCI
2.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (R21-186932)
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Support Grant (P30CA008748)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
Keywords
intolerance of uncertainty, experiential avoidance, trust in physicians, emotional distress, anxiety, depressive symptoms, advanced cancer, moderated mediation, acceptance-based interventions, psychological distress in cancer patients
MeSH terms
Psychological Distress, Mediation Analysis, Adult, Anxiety, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Physicians, Uncertainty, Trust

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