Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Published in: Annals of Behavioral Medicine 1/2010

01-02-2010 | Rapid Communication

Perceived Risk, Trust and Health-related Quality of Life Among Cancer Survivors

Authors: Erika A. Waters, Ph.D., M.P.H., Neeraj K. Arora, Ph.D., William M. P. Klein, Ph.D., Paul K. J. Han, M.D., M.P.H.

Published in: Annals of Behavioral Medicine | Issue 1/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

To design effective interventions that improve cancer survivors’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL), it is necessary to understand how HRQoL is related to cancer cognitions and interpersonal/social factors.

Purpose

This study investigated whether perceived risk of recurrence is associated with HRQoL and whether trust in the follow–up care physician moderates the perceived risk/HRQoL relationship.

Method

A cross-sectional survey of cancer survivors (N = 408).

Results

Higher perceived risk was associated with worse mental and physical HRQoL. Higher trust was associated with better mental (but not physical) HRQoL. The inverse association between perceived risk and mental HRQoL was eliminated among those with high trust in their physicians. Trust did not moderate the perceived risk/physical HRQoL relationship.

Conclusions

Addressing survivors’ perceived risk of recurrence and improving the provider-patient relationship may enhance interventions to improve mental HRQoL among cancer survivors. However, the causal relationships among the constructs should be explicated.
Footnotes
1
To alleviate concerns about dichotomizing continuous variables, we reanalyzed the data after transforming perceived risk, worry, and trust to reduce their skews. The most effective transformation varied by construct (i.e., square root for worry and inverse for perceived risk and trust). Only one of the ten main effects and interactions described in the results section differed based on whether the variables were dichotomized or transformed. Worry was not associated with PCS scores when the variables were dichotomized, but it was marginally related to PCS when it was continuous, b = 3.0, B = 0.09 (95% CI: −0.5 to 6.5), t = 1.7, p = 0.08. The 1.5-point difference in PCS scores (reported previously) is unlikely to be clinically significant [30, 35]. We report the dichotomized data for clarity of presentation. Furthermore, the extraordinarily skewed trust scores suggest that the 25% of participants who gave their physicians perfect trust ratings may be qualitatively different from participants who did not trust their physicians so completely.
 
Literature
1.
Institute of Medicine. From cancer patient to cancer survivor: Lost in translation. Washington: The National Academies; 2006.
2.
Wilson I, Cleary P. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA. 1995; 273: 59-65.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Stein KD, Syrjala KL, Andrykowski MA. Physical and psychological long-term and late effects of cancer. Cancer. 2008; 112: 2577-2592.CrossRefPubMed
4.
van den Beuken-van Everdingen MH, Peters ML, de Rijke JM, Schouten HC, van Kleef M, Patijn J. Concerns of former breast cancer patients about disease recurrence: A validation and prevalence study. Psychooncology. 2008; 17: 1137-1145.CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
Epstein RM, Street RLJ. patient-centered communication in cancer care: Promoting healing and reducing suffering. Bethesda: National Cancer Institute; 2007.
7.
Roter DL, Hall JA. Doctors talking with patients/patients talking with doctors: Improving communication in medical visits. 2nd ed. Westport: Praeger; 2006.
8.
Bosworth HB, Oddone EZ. A model of psychosocial and cultural antecedents of blood pressure control. J Natl Med Assoc. 2002; 94: 236-248.PubMed
9.
Lipkus IM, Klein WM, Skinner CS. Breast cancer risk perceptions and breast cancer worry: What predicts what? J Risk Res. 2005; 8: 439-452.CrossRef
10.
Arora NK, Hamilton AS, Potosky AL, et al. Population-based survivorship research using cancer registries: A study of non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma survivors. J Cancer Surviv. 2007; 1: 49-63.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Partridge A, Adloff K, Blood E, et al. Risk perceptions and psychosocial outcomes of women with ductal carcinoma in situ: Longitudinal results from a cohort study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008; 100: 243-251.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Calmes CA, Roberts JE. Repetitive thought and emotional distress: Rumination and worry as prospective predictors of depressive and anxious symptomatology. Cogn Ther Res. 2007; 30: 343-356.CrossRef
13.
Bunge EM, van den Bergh KAM, Essink-Bot M-L, van Klaveren RJ, de Koning HJ. High affective risk perception is associated with more lung cancer-specific distress in CT screening for lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2008; 62: 385-390.CrossRefPubMed
14.
van Dooren S, Rijnsburger AJ, Seynaeve C, et al. Psychological distress in women at increased risk for breast cancer: The role of risk perception. Eur J Cancer. 2004; 40: 2056-2063.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Gramling R, Klein WM, Roberts M, Waring ME, Eaton CB. Self-rated cardiovascular risk and 15-year cardiovascular mortality. Ann Fam Med. 2008; 6: 302-306.CrossRefPubMed
16.
DeSalvo KB, Bloser N, Reynolds K, He J, Muntner P. Mortality prediction with a single general self-rated health question: A meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2006; 21: 267-275.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J Behav Decis Mak. 2000; 13: 1-17.CrossRef
18.
Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science. 1974; 185: 1124-1131.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Slovic P. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Anal. 1993; 13: 675-682.CrossRef
20.
Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. In: Schwing RC, Albers WAJ, eds. Societal risk assessment: How safe is safe enough? New York: Plenum; 1980: 181-214.
21.
Matthies E, Hoger R, Guski R. Living on polluted soil: Determinants of stress symptoms. Environ Behav. 2000; 32: 270-286.CrossRef
22.
Han PKJ, Klein WMP, Lehman T, Massett H, Lee SC, Freedman AN. Laypersons' responses to the communication of uncertainty regarding risk estimates. Med Decis Making. 2009; 29: 391-403.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Thom DH, Hall MA, Pawlson LG. Measuring patients’ trust in physicians when assessing quality of care. Health Aff. 2004; 23: 124-132.CrossRef
24.
Arora NK, Gustafson DH. Perceived helpfulness of physicians’ communication behavior and breast cancer patients’ level of trust over time. J Gen Intern Med. 2008; 24: 252-255.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Ommen O, Janssen C, Neugebauer E, et al. Trust, social support and patient type—Associations between patients perceived trust, supportive communication and patients preferences in regard to paternalism, clarification and participation of severely injured patients. Patient Educ Couns. 2008; 73: 196-204.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Cohen S, Wills TA. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol Bull. 1985; 98: 310-357.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Arora NK, Finney Rutten LJ, Gustafson DH, Moser R, Hawkins RP. Perceived helpfulness and impact of social support provided by family, friends, and health care providers to women newly diagnosed with breast cancer. Psychooncology. 2007; 16: 474-486.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Karnell LH, Christensen AJ, Rosenthal EL, Magnuson JS, Funk GF. Influence of social support on health-related quality of life outcomes in head and neck cancer. Head Neck. 2007; 29: 143-146.CrossRefPubMed
29.
30.
Ware JE, Sherbourne DC. The MOS 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). Med Care. 1992; 30: 473-483.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Nelson W, Reyna VF, Fagerlin A, Lipkus I, Peters E. Clinical implications of numeracy: Theory and practice. Ann Behav Med. 2008; 35: 261-274.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Thom DH, Ribisl KM, Stewart AL, Luke DA. Further validation and reliability testing of the trust in physician scale. Med Care. 1999; 37: 510-517.CrossRefPubMed
33.
McQueen A, Swank PR, Bastian LA, Vernon SW. Predictors of perceived susceptibility of breast cancer and changes over time: A mixed modeling approach. Health Psychol. 2008; 27: 68-77.CrossRefPubMed
34.
McQueen A, Vernon SW, Meissner HI, Rakowski W. Risk perceptions and worry about cancer: Does gender make a difference? J Health Commun. 2008; 13: 56-79.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Samsa G, Edelman D, Rothman MI, Williams GR, Lipscomb J, Matchar D. Determining clinically important differences with health status measures: A general approach with illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999; 15: 141-155.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Perceived Risk, Trust and Health-related Quality of Life Among Cancer Survivors
Authors
Erika A. Waters, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Neeraj K. Arora, Ph.D.
William M. P. Klein, Ph.D.
Paul K. J. Han, M.D., M.P.H.
Publication date
01-02-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Annals of Behavioral Medicine / Issue 1/2010
Print ISSN: 0883-6612
Electronic ISSN: 1532-4796
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-010-9163-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2010

Annals of Behavioral Medicine 1/2010 Go to the issue

Original Article

Direct and Buffering Effects of Social Support Among Gynecologic Cancer Survivors

Introduction

Introduction to Special Series: The Great Debate—Evaluating the Health Implications of Positive Psychology

Original Article

Positive Psychology in Cancer Care: A Story Line Resistant to Evidence

Original Article

Randomized Controlled Trial of an Interactive Internet Smoking Cessation Program with Long-Term Follow-up

Original Article

The Value of Positive Psychology for Health Psychology: Progress and Pitfalls in Examining the Relation of Positive Phenomena to Health

Original Article

Positive Psychology in Cancer Care: Bad Science, Exaggerated Claims, and Unproven Medicine