Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 70Cancer survivorship and carePain Management and Opioid UseWomen's cancer prevention and management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessment of pain, acceptance of illness, adjustment to life with cancer and coping strategies in breast cancer patients

Open access
Czerw, Aleksandra, Religioni, Urszula, Deptała, Andrzej·2016·Breast Cancer
DOI 10.1007/s12282-015-0620-0PMC PMC4911383
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer is the most common malignant neoplasm in women. Over the past 40 years, the number of patients diagnosed with breast cancer quadrupled. Breast cancer is one of the most frequent causes of death in women aged 65 and more in Poland. PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate coping strategies, pain management, disease acceptance and adjustment to cancer in patients diagnosed with breast cancer and to assess the effect of socioeconomic variables on the above mentioned issues. METHODS: The study included 193 patients diagnosed with breast cancer during outpatient chemotherapy (classical chemotherapy, hormone therapy, molecularly targeted therapies) at the Center of Oncology, Maria Skłodowska-Curie Institute in Warsaw. We applied the Paper and Pencil Interview (PAPI) technique. The questionnaire interview consisted of demographic questions (socioeconomic variables) and the following four psychometric tests: BPCQ (Beliefs about Pain Control Questionnaire), measuring the influence of factors affecting pain management in patients, CSQ (Coping Strategies Questionnaire), designed to evaluate pain coping strategies, AIS (Acceptance of Illness Scale) questionnaire, measuring disease acceptance, and the mini-MAC (Mental Adjustment to Cancer) scale. RESULTS: The results of BPCQ show that breast cancer patients mostly believe that doctors control pain; the mean result for the group was 17.09 and test values were differentiated by education and professional status. The top average score in the pain coping strategies questionnaire was recorded in the positive coping self-statement subscale (mean score = 21.81), whereas the lowest, in the catastrophizing subscale (mean score = 10.60). Here, education and income proved most significant in accounting for the differences recorded. The mean score on the AIS was 28.45, and the key factor differentiating the results was income. As far as the mini-MAC is concerned, we reported the highest score in the fighting spirit subscale (23.43). The average results in the scale were slightly differentiated by socioeconomic variables. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer patients mostly believe that those who control pain are doctors. Amongst the strategies of coping with pain, the top average score was recorded in the positive coping self-statement subscale. We found out that the level of disease acceptance depends on respondent's income. The higher the income, the greater the acceptance of illness.

Overview

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/s12282-015-0620-0

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 BPCQ test scores in breast cancer patients
Fig. 1 BPCQ test scores in breast cancer patientsCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 BPCQ test scores (power of doctors) in breast cancer patients vs education
Fig. 2 BPCQ test scores (power of doctors) in breast cancer patients vs educationCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 BPCQ test scores (chance events) in breast cancer patients vs education
Fig. 3 BPCQ test scores (chance events) in breast cancer patients vs educationCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 BPCQ test scores (power of doctors) in breast cancer patients vs professional status
Fig. 4 BPCQ test scores (power of doctors) in breast cancer patients vs professional statusCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 CSQ scores in breast cancer patients
Fig. 5 CSQ scores in breast cancer patientsCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 6 CSQ scores (diverting attention) in breast cancer patients vs education
Fig. 6 CSQ scores (diverting attention) in breast cancer patients vs educationCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 7 CSQ scores (reinterpreting pain sensations) in breast cancer patients vs education
Fig. 7 CSQ scores (reinterpreting pain sensations) in breast cancer patients vs educationCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 8 CSQ scores (ignoring pain) in breast cancer patients vs education
Fig. 8 CSQ scores (ignoring pain) in breast cancer patients vs educationCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 9 CSQ scores (praying/hoping) in breast cancer patients vs education
Fig. 9 CSQ scores (praying/hoping) in breast cancer patients vs educationCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 10 CSQ scores (increased behavioral activity) in breast cancer patients vs education
Fig. 10 CSQ scores (increased behavioral activity) in breast cancer patients vs educationCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 11 AIS scores in breast cancer patients vs net income per household member
Fig. 11 AIS scores in breast cancer patients vs net income per household memberCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 12 AIS scores in breast cancer patients vs place of residents
Fig. 12 AIS scores in breast cancer patients vs place of residentsCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 13 Mini-MAC test scores in breast cancer patients
Fig. 13 Mini-MAC test scores in breast cancer patientsCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Didkowska J, Wojciechowska U. Nowotwory piersi w Polsce i Europie—populacyjny punkt widzenia. J Oncol. 2013;2(63):111–8.
  2. Deptała A, Frączek M. Rak piersi. Rozdział w książce Podstawy diagnostyki i terapii nowotworów. In: Frączek M, editor. Alfa-Medica Press, Bielsko-Biała; 2008. p. 158–164.
  3. Nowcki A, Kwasińska E, Rzepka K. Wpływ choroby na życie emocjonalne kobiet po operacji raka piersi zrzeszonych w klubach „Amazonka”. Ann Acad Med Stetin. 2009;55(3):81–5.
  4. Barnaś E, Skręt A, Skręt-Magierło J. Jakość życia kobiet z chorobą nowotworową piersi. Prz Menopauzalny. 2009;1:15–9.
  5. Juczyński J. Narzędzia pomiaru w promocji i psychologii zdrowia. Warszawa: Pracownia testów psychologicznych; 2009. p. 159.
  6. Juczyński Z. Narzędzia pomiaru w promocji i psychologii zdrowia. Warszawa: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego; 2001. p. 167–74.
  7. Juczyński Z. Psychologiczne wyznaczniki przystosowania się do choroby nowotworowej. Psychoonkologia. 1997;1:1–10.
  8. Wiśniewska A, Szewczyk MT, Cwajda-Białasik J, et al. Przekonania na temat kontroli bólu u chorych z przewlekłym niedokrwieniem kończyn dolnych. Pielęgniarstwo Chirurgiczne i Angiologiczne. 2009;3:113–21.
  9. Suchocka L. Psychologia bólu. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Difin, Centrum Doradztwa i Informacji Difin Sp. z o.o.; 2008.
  10. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies Series, Health Systems, Health, Wealth and Societal Well-being. Assessing the case for investing in health systems. In: Figueras J, McKee M, editors. New York: Open University Press; 2012.
  11. Juczyński Z. Narzędzia pomiaru w promocji i psychologii zdrowia. Warszawa: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego; 2001. p. 164.
  12. Wiraszka G, Lelonek B. Funkcjonowanie chorego z białaczką a akceptacja choroby nowotworowej. Studi Med. 2008;10:21–6.
  13. Martin LG. Adjusting to type 2 diabetes: the impact of illness cognitions on self management behavior and biological outcomes. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 2012;72(9-B):5594.
  14. Kozak G. Zróżnicowanie strategii radzenia sobie z nowotworem chorych w przebiegu wybranych nowotworów złośliwych. Anestezjologia i Ratownictwo. 2012;6:162–70.
  15. Taylor S. Przystosowanie do zagrażających wydarzeń. Now Psychol. 1984;6:15–37.

Cited by

See all 70

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Czerw, A., Religioni, U., & Deptała, A.
Affiliations
Medical University of Warsaw (PL)
Corresponding author
Czerw, Aleksandra
ORCID
Venue
Breast Cancer
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2015-06-02
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
654-661
ISSN
  • 1340-6868 (ISSN-L)
  • 1880-4233
DOI
10.1007/s12282-015-0620-0
PMC
PMC4911383
OpenAlex
W605364663
Cited by
70
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6
FWCI
2.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Breast Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
Keywords
cancer pain, pain coping, acceptance of illness, adjustment to cancer, mental adjustment to cancer, socioeconomic factors, income, pain beliefs, catastrophizing, chemotherapy patients
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Breast Neoplasms, Educational Status, Female, Humans, Income, Physicians, Poland, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Socioeconomic Factors, Pain Management

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.