Psychological coping and cancer
Open accessAbstract
Editor—The review by Petticrew et al is flawed.1 Firstly, they do not compare like with like and ignore differing methods. Different instruments assess coping styles differently and may not be comparable. Thus conclusions cannot be drawn convincingly. Out of 28 studies, 13 had less than three years' follow up (shortest eight weeks). However, in relation to early breast cancer less than five years of follow up produces inconclusive results. Secondly, our study was relegated to the realms of irrelevance by saying that the recent large UK study (n=578), while of higher quality, reported mixed findings: helplessness or hopelessness predicted recurrence when patients with high and low scores were compared but not when it was the predominant coping style.2 The main importance of our clearly stated findings concerning helplessness and hopelessness was missed. Mixed findings were not reported. Although predominant coping style was arbitrarily defined, helplessness or hopelessness is robust across many studies. A high score on this subscale is a valid measure, reflecting a response amenable to psychological intervention. This finding was crucially important for encouraging adequate provision of psychological care in oncology, as was the small, cautiously interpreted tendency to poorer outcome found in severely depressed patients. Patient responsibility (or blame) is removed, and the onus shifts to the medical profession to identify and provide help for those at risk. Dismissal of our study—which used rigorous methods, controlled for known prognostic variables, was sufficiently large, had a long follow up, and found a survival effect—does the research no service. Better to conclude that many poor studies fail to show any effect of coping response on survival, but high quality studies provide evidence suggesting that further good research is needed. Meanwhile the adverse effect on outcome of a helpless or hopeless coping response clearly argues for the provision of better psychological resources.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
A systematic review on repression in cancer survival yielded somewhat inconclusive results.
“A systematic review on repression in cancer survival yielded somewhat inconclusive results [186, 187].”
From Personality and Longevity: Knowns, Unknowns, and Implications for Public Health and Personalized Medicine (2011) · cites this paper as [187]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Petticrew, M., Bell, R., & Hunter, D. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7372.1066 · Cited by 310 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Chapman, B. P., Roberts, B., & Duberstein, P. (2011) · Journal of Aging Research · doi:10.4061/2011/759170 · Cited by 283 · see citing works
Chapman, B. P., Hampson, S., & Clarkin, J. (2014) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0034135 · Cited by 166 · see citing works
- Authors
- Watson, M., Davidson-Homewood, J., Haviland, J., & Bliss, J. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Leeds (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Maggie Watson
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2003-03-15
- Volume
- 326
- Issue
- 7389
- Pages
- 598.2
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- PMC
- PMC1125485
- OpenAlex
- W99882266
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2013: 2
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/terms-conditions/legal-information/tdm-licencepolicy (tdm)
- Locations
- BMJ (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Cancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune Response
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
- Keywords
- coping, cancer, helplessness, hopelessness, breast cancer, tumor recurrence, survival, depression, psychological intervention, coping styles
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Psychological, Humans, Neoplasms, Publishing
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