Personality as a predictor of well-being in a randomized trial of a mindfulness-based stress reduction of Danish women with breast cancer
Abstract
Purpose: Many clinical interventions have been designed to improve psychological well-being in women with breast cancer; however, there are individual differences in the extent of benefit across participants. Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) is a structured 8-week intervention that has been shown to reduce depression and anxiety for patients with breast cancer. Personality factors may influence which participants benefit more from various psychological interventions, including MBSR.Design: In a secondary analysis, we examined whether personality factors accounted for variability in response to an MBSR intervention for women with breast cancer.Sample: Two hundred eighty Danish women with breast cancer who completed the Mindfulness and Cancer Mamma trial were included in this analysis.Methods: Using multiple regression analyses, we investigated whether personality factors, measured by the NEO-PI-R, contribute independently or interact with treatment to predict depressive symptoms at 2, 6, and 12-month follow-up.Findings: The interaction between low conscientiousness and MBSR, as well as high neuroticism and MBSR each predicted significantly lower levels of distress at 12-month follow-up compared to women who higher in conscientious or lower in neuroticism.Conclusions: Personality factors may contribute to the impact of psychosocial interventions, such as MBSR, on psychological well-being.Implications for Psychosocial Providers: Utilizing personality measures may assist providers in identifying which patients may benefit from mindfulness therapies.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Personality factors, including conscientiousness and neuroticism, appear to contribute to the impact of MBSR on psychological wellbeing.
“Personality factors appear to contribute to the impact of MBSR on psychological wellbeing, including variation in traits such as conscientiousness and neuroticism [30].”
From Psychological Intervention and Breast Cancer (2024) · cites this paper as [30]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 45 · Cited by 20
- Authors
- Jagielski, C. H., Tucker, D. C., Dalton, S. O., Mrug, S., Würtzen, H., & Johansen, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
- Zealand University Hospital (DK)
- Copenhagen University Hospital (DK)
- Danish Cancer Society (DK)
- Corresponding author
- Dalton, Susanne O.
- Venue
- Journal of Psychosocial Oncology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2019-07-03
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 4-19
- ISSN
- 0734-7332 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-7586
- OpenAlex
- W2954416748
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 0.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Psychosocial Oncology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
- Keywords
- personality, mindfulness-based stress reduction, breast cancer, women, psychological well-being, depressive symptoms, conscientiousness, neuroticism, treatment response, individual differences, psychosocial interventions
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Anxiety, Breast Neoplasms, Denmark, Depression, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Middle Aged, Personality, Stress, Psychological, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult, 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