Cited by 77Optimism, Hope, and Well-beingCancer survivorship and carePalliative and Oncologic Care

A longitudinal study of the effects of a hope intervention on levels of hope and psychological distress in a community-based sample of oncology patients

Rustøen, Tone, Cooper, Bruce A., Miaskowski, Christine·2011·European Journal of Oncology Nursing

Abstract

Purpose of research To determine the effect of the hope intervention (HOPE-IN) on levels of hope and psychological distress immediately (T2), 3 (T3), and 12 (T4) months following the intervention; determine the effects of the HOPE-IN on changes in patients' level of hope after controlling for baseline levels of psychological distress; and evaluate patients' level of satisfaction with the HOPE-IN.Methods and sample This single group, longitudinal study recruited a community-based sample which cancer. Most of the participants (n = 195) were females, married, and had breast cancer. The HOPE-IN consisted of eight 2-h sessions conducted over 8 weeks. Data were collected on demographic and clinical characteristics, hope (Herth Hope Index), psychological distress (Impact of Event Scale (IES)), and satisfaction with the HOPE-IN.Key results Hope scores increased significantly from T1 to T2, and then decreased slightly from T2 through T4. Both intrusion and avoidance IES scores decreased significantly from T1 to T2 and then decreased slightly from T2 to T4. The changes in hope scores remained significant even when baseline scores on intrusion were controlled for in the analyses. Baseline level of hope was negatively correlated with baseline intrusion and avoidance scores. These findings indicate that the trajectories of hope scores remained the same conditioned on intrusion or avoidance. Over 95% of the participants reported that the HOPE-IN was useful to them.Conclusions Additional research is warranted to determine the most effective approaches to increase hope and reduce psychological distress in individuals who are living with a cancer diagnosis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejon.2010.09.001

Cites

51 of 51 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

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rustøen, T., Cooper, B. A., & Miaskowski, C.
Affiliations
  • Oslo University Hospital (NO)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
Venue
European Journal of Oncology Nursing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-09
Volume
15
Issue
4
Pages
351-357
ISSN
1462-3889 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2036371346
Cited by
77
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Oncology Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
EkstraStiftelsen Helse og Rehabilitering (Stiftelsen Dam)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Optimism, Hope, and Well-being
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
Keywords
hope interventions, hope, psychological distress, breast cancer, cancer patients, intrusion, avoidance, Herth Hope Index, Impact of Event Scale, intervention satisfaction
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Breast Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Norway, Nursing Assessment, Residence Characteristics, Stress, Psychological, Patient Satisfaction, Survivors

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