Cited by 21Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsCancer survivorship and carePalliative and Oncologic Care

Coping with cancer mindfully: A feasibility study of a mindfulness intervention focused on acceptance and meaning in life for adults with advanced cancer

Zimmermann, Fernanda F., Jordan, Jennifer, Burrell, Beverley·2020·European Journal of Oncology Nursing

Abstract

Purpose The psychological needs of those with advanced cancer have been relatively neglected and many cannot attend treatment for logistic reasons. This study evaluated the feasibility of recruitment and delivery strategies and gathered preliminary data regarding efficacy of the "Coping with Cancer Mindfully" intervention. This is a mindfulness-based intervention designed to improve patients' coping by accepting their situation, increasing their focus on meaning in life and learning to cope with cancer mindfully.Methods This is a single arm pre-post-intervention design. Adults with advanced cancer were recruited from oncology services providers in Christchurch, New Zealand. The intervention was a 1:1 delivery of a 4-week course of pre-recorded mindfulness sessions. Feasibility was assessed by attaining recruitment targets and treatment retention.Measures evaluated participants' levels of mindful coping skills (Mindful Coping Scale), acceptance stance (Acceptance and Action Questionnaire - II) and meaning in their lives (Meaning in Life Questionnaire). Descriptive statistics, paired t-tests and Cohen's d effect sizes were used.Results Twenty of 30 eligible participants consented. All participants completed the four-week course, and 19/20 completed post-treatment questionnaires, demonstrating feasibility. Pre-post effect sizes were moderate-large for change in acceptance, large for mindful coping skills and the presence of meaning in life. Pre-post change in search for meaning in life was not statistically significant.Conclusions This study presented preliminary promising results regarding efficacy of the intervention in promoting positive changes in acceptance, meaning in life and mindful coping skills. The low-burden and flexible home-based delivery aspects of the intervention contributed to full retention.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejon.2019.101715

Cites

54 of 54 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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zimmermann, F. F., Jordan, J., & Burrell, B.
Affiliations
University of Otago (NZ)
Corresponding author
Zimmermann, Fernanda F.
Venue
European Journal of Oncology Nursing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-02
Volume
44
Pages
101715
ISSN
1462-3889 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2994909842
Cited by
21
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3
FWCI
3.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Oncology Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Social Support Service/Ministry of Health
  • Canterbury-West Coast Division of the Cancer Society
  • University of Otago Postgraduate Publishing Bursary
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
Keywords
mindfulness-based interventions, advanced cancer, acceptance, meaning in life, feasibility, home-based intervention, treatment retention, recruitment (clinical trials)
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Attitude to Health, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, New Zealand, Surveys and Questionnaires, Mindfulness

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