Cited by 132Cancer survivorship and careMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPalliative and Oncologic Care

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 126 of the 126 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 51 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

The relationship between acceptance of cancer and distress: A meta-analytic review

Open access
Secinti, Ekin, Tometich, Danielle B., Johns, Shelley A., Mosher, Catherine E.·2019·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

Acceptance of cancer has long been recognized as playing a critical role in psychological adjustment to the illness, but its associations with distress outcomes have not been quantitatively reviewed. Informed by coping theory and third wave conceptualizations of acceptance, we first propose an integrated model of acceptance of cancer. Then we examine the strength of the relationships between acceptance of cancer and general and cancer-specific distress in cancer patients and potential moderators of these relationships. CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, and Web of Science databases were searched. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted on 78 records (N=15,448). Small-to-moderate, negative, and significant relationships were found between acceptance of cancer and general distress (r=−.31; 95% CI:−.36 to −.26, k=75); cancer-specific distress (r=−.18; 95% CI:−.21 to −.14, k=13); depressive symptoms (r=−.25; 95% CI:−.31 to −.19, k=41); and anxiety symptoms (r=−.22; 95% CI:−.30 to −.15, k=29). Age, marital status, and stage of cancer were identified as significant moderators. Findings suggest that acceptance of cancer may be important to target in interventions to reduce general and cancer-specific distress in cancer patients. Future research should focus on developing multifaceted measures of acceptance and identifying theory-based psychological and social processes that lead to greater acceptance.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2019.05.001

Cites

126 of 126 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 51 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 57 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 35
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 26
55 of 55
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Before this review, the link between acceptance of cancer and distress outcomes had not been quantitatively synthesized.

    “its associations with distress outcomes have not been quantitatively reviewed”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Acceptance of cancer has a critical role in psychological adjustment to cancer.

    “Acceptance of cancer has long been recognized as playing a critical role in psychological adjustment to the illness”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Variation in effect sizes may come from differences in sample characteristics and acceptance measures across studies.

    “Differences in sample characteristics and measures of acceptance across studies may contribute to this variability in effect sizes.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Some demographic and medical subgroups of cancer patients may benefit more mentally from acceptance.

    “Certain demographic and medical subgroups of cancer patients might experience greater mental health benefits from acceptance.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Acceptance of cancer is an active process that changes how patients relate to internal experiences, involves a nonjudgmental and compassionate stance, and includes behavioral willingness in response to cancer-related stressors.

    “As stated earlier, we conceptualize acceptance of cancer as an active process that changes how patients relate to their internal experiences of the illness such as appraisals, emotional responses, and bodily sensations.”
    “Specifically, acceptance involves taking a nonjudgmental and compassionate stance toward internal experiences, thereby reducing the struggle with the realities of the illness.”
    “In addition, we conceptualize acceptance as behavioral willingness in response to cancer-related stressors, resulting in action consistent with deeply held values.”
5 of 5

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 125 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–132 of 132

Metadata

Authors
Secinti, E., Tometich, D. B., Johns, S. A., & Mosher, C. E.
Affiliations
  • Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (US)
  • Regenstrief Institute (US)
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-07
Volume
71
Pages
27-38
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2942810090
Cited by
132
References
125
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
  • Author eBooks
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (T32CA117865, F31CA220964, K05CA175048, K07CA168883)
  • Walther Cancer Foundation (0175.01)
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
psychological distress, cancer-specific distress, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, psychological adjustment to cancer, coping, marital status, tumor stage, moderators
MeSH terms
Psychological Distress, Anxiety, Depression, Humans, Neoplasms, Stress, Psychological

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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