Next Article in Journal
The Feasibility and Acceptability of a Data Capture Methodology in Pediatric Cancer Patients Treated with Targeted Agents and Immunotherapies
Next Article in Special Issue
Learnings from Racialized Adolescents and Young Adults with Lived Experiences of Cancer: “It’s Okay to Critique the System That Claims to Save Us”
Previous Article in Journal
Positive Psychological Well-Being in Early Palliative Care: A Narrative Review of the Roles of Hope, Gratitude, and Death Acceptance
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Current Oncology
Volume 31
Issue 2
10.3390/curroncol31020050
curroncol-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Brief Report

Describing and Exploring Coping Strategies among Those Diagnosed with Cancer as an Adolescent or Young Adult: A YACPRIME Study

by
Amanda Wurz
1,
Anika Petrella
2,
Joshua Tulk
3,
Catherine M. Sabiston
4,
Fiona Schulte
5,
Jackie Bender
6,
Norma D’Agostino
6,
Sharon H. J. Hou
5,7,
Geoff Eaton
8,
Karine Chalifour
8 and
Sheila N. Garland
3,9,*
1
School of Kinesiology, University of the Fraser Valley, Chilliwack, BC V2S 7M7, Canada
2
Cancer Clinical Trials Unit, University College Hospital, London NW1 2BU, UK
3
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Science, Memorial University, St. John’s, NL A1C 5S7, Canada
4
Department of Exercise Sciences, Faculty of Kinesiology & Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5R 0A3, Canada
5
Department of Oncology, Division of Psychosocial Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
6
Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON M5G 2M9, Canada
7
Department of Psychology, BC Children’s Hospital, Vancouver, BC V6H 3N1, Canada
8
Young Adult Cancer Canada, St. John’s, NL A1B 3K3, Canada
9
Discipline of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St. John’s, NL A1C 5S7, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Curr. Oncol. 2024, 31(2), 685-692; https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31020050
Submission received: 21 November 2023 / Revised: 9 January 2024 / Accepted: 22 January 2024 / Published: 24 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue AYA Cancer Care and Support: Patient Perspectives, Programs, Practices, and Policy Change)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
A greater understanding of how young people cope with a cancer diagnosis is needed in order to inform age-appropriate supportive care. This paper describes the coping strategies used and explores relationships between coping strategies and personal, medical, and psychological variables among young adults (YAs) diagnosed with cancer. YAs (n = 547, mean age = 34.05 ± 6.00 years) completed an online survey, including the Brief COPE and measures of psychological functioning. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations were computed. Acceptance, self-distraction, positive reframing, and planning were the most used coping strategies by this sample. There were small (r = −0.09) to large (r = 0.51) significant relationships between personal, medical, and psychological variables and selected coping strategies. Coping with a cancer diagnosis early in life remains poorly understood. Identifying additional correlates and exploring inter- and intrapersonal variation in coping strategy use is required.

1. Introduction

While relatively rare, cancer among adolescents and young adults (AYAs; 15 to 39 years of age) is associated with negative disease- and treatment-related effects that harm all health domains [1,2,3]. Uniquely for AYAs, cancer coincides with a pivotal developmental period [4], which can exacerbate or precipitate adverse effects, requiring age-appropriate supportive care to help AYAs cope with their disease [2].
Coping, conceptualized as efforts to manage demands perceived as exceeding one’s resources [5], has been relatively unexplored among AYAs diagnosed with cancer. The limited literature on coping among AYAs diagnosed with cancer is tenuous (e.g., small sample sizes, researcher-generated questionnaires) and fraught with heterogeneity (e.g., various questionnaires used, different coping approaches examined), making it difficult to draw firm conclusions [6,7,8]. Further, the specific coping strategies that are (and are not) being used by this cohort vary across quantitative and qualitative investigations [6,9,10,11]. Given that coping is complex and dynamic across the lifespan [5], identifying the strategies AYAs diagnosed with cancer use to cope with their disease could offer insights to inform age-appropriate supportive care.
Additionally, there is a need to identify those AYAs who may be more/less likely to use selected strategies and experience positive or negative outcomes in the wake of their cancer diagnosis. While there is evidence among older adults affected by cancer to suggest select coping strategies and styles may be related to personal (e.g., age, sex), medical (e.g., treatment status, time since diagnosis), and psychological variables (e.g., emotional distress, post-traumatic growth [PTG]) [12,13], such relationships have yet to be examined among AYAs diagnosed with cancer. Thus, the objectives of this sub-study were to describe coping and estimate relationships between coping strategies and potentially relevant personal (age, sex), medical (treatment status, time since diagnosis), and psychological (post-traumatic growth, distress) variables in this cohort.

2. Materials and Methods

The data analyzed and reported herein were collected as part of a larger observational study using an online survey: the Young Adults with Cancer in Their Prime (YACPRIME) study [1,2,3].

2.1. Participants

Young adults (YAs) were eligible if they were ≥19 years, had received a cancer diagnosis as an AYA, and were Canadian residents.

2.2. Procedures

Relevant ethical approval was obtained, and YAs were recruited through advertising, social media, healthcare provider referral, and the Young Adult Cancer Canada (YACC) network. Following informed consent, participants completed the online survey. Further details covering the participants and procedures have been published elsewhere [1,2,3].

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Personal and Medical Information

A researcher-generated questionnaire collected information covering age, sex, ethnicity, location (rural or urban), cancer type, treatment status (on- or off-treatment), and time since diagnosis.

2.3.2. Coping

The Brief COPE was used to measure coping [14], where 28 items assess 14 coping strategies. Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (I haven’t been doing this at all) to 4 (I have been doing this a lot). Coping strategy scores were computed by summing relevant items (see Supplementary File S1), with higher scores indicating greater use. Correlations between items on each subscale in this sample ranged from r = 0.32 (self-distraction) to r = 0.92 (substance use).

2.3.3. Psychological Variables

The 10-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) was used to measure distress [15]. The K10 employs a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (none of the time) to 5 (all of the time). A global distress score was calculated by summing scores, with higher scores indicating greater distress (α in this sample = 0.91). The PTG Inventory (PTG-I) was used to assess PTG [16]. The PTG-I comprises 21 items measuring 5 subdimensions of post-traumatic growth. Each item is rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (I did not experience this change) to 5 (I experienced this change to a very great degree). A total PTG score was calculated by summing all responses, with higher scores representing greater PTG (α in this sample = 0.92).

2.4. Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS (version 27). Data were first inspected for missing values, and after removing participants with missing data on the variables of interest (n = 75), the data were screened to ensure that the assumptions for planned analyses were met. Normally distributed data were described by mean and standard deviation (SD), and binary and categorical variables were presented using frequency and percentages. Bivariate correlations (Pearson and point-biserial; p < 0.05) were estimated to explore the relationships between the 14 coping strategies and personal, medical, and psychological variables.

3. Results

The sample consisted of 547 YAs, who were, on average, 34.05 (SD = 6.00) years of age, and who had been diagnosed with cancer an average of 4.89 (SD = 5.29) years prior to survey completion. The majority of participants self-identified as female (n = 475; 86.8%), white (n = 477; 87.2%), and as residing in an urban location (n = 404; 73.9%). Most of the sample had been diagnosed with breast cancer (n = 148; 27.1%) or a hematological malignancy (n = 147; 26.8%). The remainder had been diagnosed with genitourinary and gynecologic (n = 65; 11.9%), thyroid (n = 44; 8.0%), brain (n = 31; 5.7%), head and neck (n = 9; 1.6%), gastrointestinal (n = 45; 8.2%), skin (n = 15; 2.7%), other types of cancer (e.g., bone tumor, neuroendocrine cancer; n = 38; 6.9%), or multiple types of cancer (n = 5; 0.9%).
Participants’ scores on the variables of interest for this sub-study are shown in Table 1. The coping strategies used most often in this sample were self-distraction (e.g., turning to work or other activities to think about it less), active coping (e.g., taking action and concentrating one’s efforts towards doing something), emotional support (e.g., getting emotional support, comfort, and understanding from others), positive reframing (e.g., looking for something good in the situation), planning (e.g., coming up with a strategy or way forward), and acceptance (e.g., learning to live with it). Substance use (e.g., using alcohol or other drugs to make one feel better), behavioral disengagement (e.g., giving up trying to deal with it), and religion (e.g., praying or meditating) were the least often used strategies. Of note, participants’ scores on distress and PTG were moderate, relative to score ranges.
The bivariate correlations between coping strategies and personal, medical, and psychological variables are presented in Table 2. There were small, significant associations between age and sex and selected coping strategies. Specifically, as age increased, the use of self-distraction (r = −0.18), humor (r = −0.17), self-blame (r = −0.11), and instrumental support (r = −0.09) decreased. Females were more likely than males to use emotional support (rpb = 0.15), religion (rpb = 0.10), and instrumental support (rpb = 0.10) and less likely to use behavioral disengagement (rpb = −0.10) to help them cope. In terms of medical variables, there were small, significant associations between treatment status and time since treatment, such that being on-treatment was associated with greater use of denial (rpb = 0.11) and venting (rpb = 0.11). And, as time from diagnosis increased, the use of denial (r = −0.09), emotional support (r = −0.13), venting (r = −0.13), humor (r = −0.14), and instrumental support (r = −0.11) decreased. Finally, there were small, moderate, and large significant relationships between distress and PTG and selected coping strategies. Indeed, higher levels of distress were associated with greater use of denial (r = 0.37), behavioral disengagement (r = 0.51), self-blame (r = 0.51), self-distraction (r = 0.21), substance use (r = 0.25), venting (r = 0.22), and humor (r = 0.09), and less use of emotional support (r = −0.11) and acceptance (r = −0.14). Greater PTG was significantly related to greater use of active coping (r = 0.39), positive reframing (r = 0.47), planning (r = 0.34), acceptance (r = 0.36), religion (r = 0.49), instrumental support (r = 0.32), self-distraction (r = 0.09), emotional support (r = 0.27), and venting (r = 0.15). Conversely, less PTG was associated with greater substance use (r = −0.09) and behavioral disengagement (r = −0.21) as coping strategies. The remaining relationships were small (rs = 0.00–0.08) and not statistically significant (ps > 0.05).

4. Discussion

This study sought to describe coping strategies and estimate relationships between coping strategies and relevant personal, medical, and psychological variables. Aligned with prior research, diagnosis acceptance, support seeking, reframing, and distraction were endorsed [9,11,17]. However, participants in this sample also reported planning and taking action (i.e., active coping), which have been reported less in research with young adults (21–39 years) and older samples (40–79 years) [6]. Religion, substance use, and behavioral disengagement were among the least used strategies in this sample, which also stands in contrast to prior research with adults (32–60 years) [18] and AYAs diagnosed with cancer [19].
Age was negatively related to self-distraction, humor, and self-blame, such that older participants reported using these strategies less. This differs from prior work that suggests avoidant and distracting coping styles increase with age [20,21,22,23]. Given that coping is a dynamic construct that changes over time and with life experiences, exploring the developmental trajectories of varied coping strategies could offer insights into the needs and preferences of each life stage and provide a foundation to tailor care appropriately for patients at different ages.
In this study, females were more likely to use emotional support, religion, and instrumental support and less likely to use behavior disengagement. One possible explanation for this could relate to existing gender stereotypes, which may make it easier for the females in this sample to share information about their diagnosis and seek support from others [24]. There were also differences in coping strategies based on treatment status and time since treatment, which supports findings from Miedema and colleagues [10]. Notwithstanding the patterns observed herein, it is important to note that the strength of the relationships between personal and medical variables and selected coping strategies were variable. Considering the highly individualized nature of coping [10], further efforts are required to explore intra- and interpersonal differences in coping. Primary and allied healthcare providers should exert caution when extrapolating these findings to their work with patients.
Greater use of denial, behavioral disengagement, self-blame, self-distraction, substance use, venting, and humor was related to greater distress. However, the mechanisms underlying this relationship, including whether the relationship is bidirectional, are unknown. Exploring coping strategies and psychological outcomes via prospective observational studies and structural equation modeling (e.g., cross-lagged panel analysis) could provide insight into how coping strategy use develops and changes, which could lay a foundation for intervention efforts to better support coping and mitigate distress in this cohort.
More frequent use of active coping, positive reframing, planning, acceptance, religion, emotional support, and instrumental support was related to PTG, which may be due in part to the conceptual overlap between PTG and coping. Tedeschi and Calhoun [25] suggest that PTG describes the positive changes that result from coping with a stressful life event such as cancer. Again, the longitudinal pathways of this relationship are not well understood among AYA cancer. Similar to above, further research is required to better understand coping and PTG.
Interestingly, self-distraction and venting were both positively related to distress and PTG. This finding is notable given that many researchers have conflated these strategies and reported a composite score representing maladaptive coping [17]. Results from this study suggest that these strategies are related in the same way to positive and negative psychological outcomes, suggesting that the strategies in and of themselves may not be inherently adaptive or maladaptive. Rather, whether the use of self-distraction and venting are helpful or not may relate to other individual factors such as social support, over reliance on these coping techniques, or other factors.
Though this study contributes valuable information about coping among AYAs diagnosed with cancer, the findings should be viewed within the context of their limitations. This larger study recruited a large, representative (in terms of cancer diagnosis) sample of young adults diagnosed with cancer as AYAs. However, it was homogenous regarding sociodemographic variables (e.g., education, sex, race/ethnicity, rurality), limiting the ability to perform sub-group analyses and better understand coping among those who have been historically under-represented in the literature. Additionally, participants were primarily recruited and completed the survey online, which could have excluded those with lower technology literacy or access. Targeted recruitment is needed to reach hard-to-access samples. Finally, though the Brief COPE (a popular questionnaire for assessing coping) was used, comparing findings from this study and published research reports was challenging as most researchers report composite scores (not scores on each subscale). The study team made the decision to report subscale scores only to better advance the study of coping by exploring unique strategies used by this population and to adhere to guidance from developers of the Brief COPE who have not tested or validated composite scores.
Coping is an integral part of the cancer journey. Participants in this study report using a wide range of strategies at different points in their experience, which were related in different ways to personal, medical, and psychological variables. The findings highlight several avenues of future inquiry and call attention to the need for age-appropriate, individualized care.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/curroncol31020050/s1. Supplementary File S1: Items and information on the scoring of the Brief COPE.

Author Contributions

A.W.: conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis, data curation, writing—original draft, visualization; A.P.: conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis, writing—review and editing; J.T.: conceptualization, investigation, writing—review and editing; C.M.S.: conceptualization, writing—review and editing; F.S.: conceptualization, writing—review and editing; J.B.: writing—review and editing; N.D.: writing—review and editing; S.H.J.H.: writing—review and editing; G.E.: conceptualization, writing—review and editing; K.C.: conceptualization, writing—review and editing; S.N.G.: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, resources, supervision, writing—review and editing, project administration, funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by a patient-oriented research grant from the Newfoundland and Labrador Support for People and Person-Oriented Research and Trials (NL SUPPORT) unit. S.N.G is supported by the Canadian Cancer Society Emerging Scholar Award (Survivorship) (grant #707146). S.H.J.H. is supported by the Cumming School of Medicine Postdoctoral Scholarship, and the Arnie Charbonneau Cancer Institute.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by received ethics approval from Memorial University’s Interdisciplinary Committee on Ethics in Human Research (ICEHR) (protocol code 20170502-SC, 10 August 2016).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be available to investigators whose proposed use of the data has been approved by an independent review committee. To gain access, data requestors will need to sign a data access agreement.

Acknowledgments

Sincere thanks go to the YACPRIME study participants who gave their time and shared their experiences.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of the data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Lane, B.; Fowler, K.; Eaton, G.; Chalifour, K.; Garland, S.N. Prevalence and factors associated with high levels of distress in young adult cancer survivors compared to matched peers. Support. Care Cancer 2020, 29, 2653–2662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Schulte, F.S.M.; Chalifour, K.; Eaton, G.; Garland, S.N. Quality of life among survivors of adolescent and young adult cancer in Canada: A Young Adults With Cancer in Their Prime (YACPRIME) study. Cancer 2021, 127, 1325–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Mahon, K.N.; Garland, S.N.; Eaton, G.; Chalifour, K.; Lane, B.E.; Fowler, K.; Gambin, L.; Clair, L. The financial impact of cancer on Canadian young adults. J. Cancer Surviv. 2021, 17, 174–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Zirkel, S.; Cantor, N. Personal construal of life tasks: Those who struggle for independence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1990, 58, 172–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lazarus, R.S.; Folkman, S. The coping process: An alternative to traditional formulations. In Stress, Appraisal, and Coping; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1984; pp. 141–180. [Google Scholar]
  6. Beesley, V.L.; Smith, D.D.; Nagle, C.M.; Friedlander, M.; Grant, P.; DeFazio, A.; Webb, P.M. Coping strategies, trajectories, and their associations with patient-reported outcomes among women with ovarian cancer. Support. Care Cancer 2018, 26, 4133–4142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Darabos, K.; Renna, M.E.; Wang, A.W.; Zimmermann, C.F.; Hoyt, M.A. Emotional approach coping among young adults with cancer: Relationships with psychological distress, posttraumatic growth, and resilience. Psycho-Oncol. 2021, 30, 728–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Wu, L.; Sheen, J.; Shu, H.; Chang, S.; Hsiao, C. Predictors of anxiety and resilience in adolescents undergoing cancer treatment. J. Adv. Nurs. 2013, 69, 158–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bradford, N.; Cashion, C.; Holland, L.; Henney, R.; Walker, R. Coping with cancer: A qualitative study of adolescent and young adult perspectives. Patient Educ. Couns. 2022, 105, 974–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Miedema, B.; Hamilton, R.; Easley, J. From “invincibility” to “normalcy”: Coping strategies of young adults during the cancer journey. Palliat. Support. Care 2007, 5, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kyngäs, H.; Mikkonen, R.; Nousiainen, E.-M.; Rytilahti, M.; Seppänen, P.; Vaattovaara, R.; Jämsä, T. Coping with the onset of cancer: Coping strategies and resources of young people with cancer. Eur. J. Cancer Care 2001, 10, 6–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Faraci, P.; Bottaro, R. A cross-sectional study examining the relationship between socio-demographics and coping styles in a group of cancer patients. Clin. Neuropsychiatry 2021, 18, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Wan, X.; Huang, H.; Peng, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Hao, J.; Lu, G.; Chen, C. The relation between coping style and posttraumatic growth among patients with breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 926383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Carver, C.S. You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: Consider the Brief COPE. Int. J. Behav. Med. 1997, 4, 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Kessler, R.C.; Andrews, G.; Colpe, L.J.; Hiripi, E.; Mroczek, D.K.; Normand, S.-L.T.; Walters, E.E.; Zaslavsky, A.M. Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychol. Med. 2002, 32, 959–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Tedeschi, R.G.; Calhoun, L.G. The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. J. Trauma. Stress 1996, 9, 455–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sira, N.; Lamson, A.; Foster, C.L. Relational and Spiritual Coping Among Emerging and Young Adult Cancer Survivors. J. Holist. Nurs. 2020, 38, 52–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Khalili, N.; Farajzadegan, Z.; Mokarian, F.; Bahrami, F. Coping strategies, quality of life and pain in women with breast cancer. Iran. J. Nurs. Midwifery Res. 2013, 18, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  19. Grégoire, S.; Lamore, K.; Laurence, V.; Moura, D.S.; Marec-Berard, P.; Leprince, T.; Corradini, N.; Blin, N.; Chauvet, S.; Seigneur, E.; et al. Coping Strategies and Factors Related to Problematic Substance Use and Behavioral Addictions Among Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer. J. Adolesc. Young Adult Oncol. 2020, 9, 639–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Osowiecki, D.; Compas, B.E. Psychological Adjustment to Cancer: Control Beliefs and Coping in Adult Cancer Patients. Cogn. Ther. Res. 1998, 22, 483–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Boyle, C.C.; Stanton, A.L.; Ganz, P.A.; Bower, J.E. Posttraumatic growth in breast cancer survivors: Does age matter? Psycho-Oncol. 2017, 26, 800–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Aarts, J.W.F.; Deckx, L.; van Abbema, D.L.; Tjan-Heijnen, V.C.G.; Akker, M.v.D.; Buntinx, F. The relation between depression, coping and health locus of control: Differences between older and younger patients, with and without cancer. Psycho-Oncol. 2015, 24, 950–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Turner-Sack, A.M.; Menna, R.; Setchell, S.R. Posttraumatic Growth, Coping Strategies, and Psychological Distress in Adolescent Survivors of Cancer. J. Pediatr. Oncol. Nurs. 2012, 29, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Hilton, S.; Emslie, C.; Hunt, K.; Chapple, A.; Ziebland, S. Disclosing a Cancer Diagnosis to Friends and Family: A Gendered Analysis of Young Men’s and Women’s Experiences. Qual. Heal. Res. 2009, 19, 744–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Tedeschi, R.G.; Calhoun, L.G. Posttraumatic Growth: Conceptual Foundations and Empirical Evidence. Psychol. Inq. 2004, 15, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Participant demographics and scores on main study variables.
Table 1. Participant demographics and scores on main study variables.
VariableScore RangeMean (SD)
Age --34.05 (6.00)
Sex
    Female †--475 (86.8)
Treatment status
    On-treatment †--167 (30.5)
Time since diagnosis--4.89 (5.29)
Distress10–5024.64 (7.91)
PTG0–10557.24 (21.97)
Coping
    Self-distraction1–85.75 (1.60)
    Active coping1–85.32 (1.58)
    Denial1–82.81 (1.33)
    Substance use1–83.09 (1.70)
    Emotional support1–85.27 (1.70)
    Behavioral disengagement1–82.93 (1.31)
    Venting1–84.40 (1.56)
    Positive reframing1–85.36 (1.78)
    Planning1–85.41 (1.68)
    Humor1–84.78 (1.96)
    Acceptance1–86.13 (1.53)
    Religion1–83.81 (1.93)
    Self-blame1–84.12 (1.74)
    Instrumental support1–84.64 (1.67)
Notes. PTG = post-traumatic growth; SD = standard deviation. † indicates that data is presented as n (%).
Table 2. Correlations between coping and personal, medical, and psychological variables.
Table 2. Correlations between coping and personal, medical, and psychological variables.
Variables12345678910111213141516171819
1. Age--
2. Sex †,‡−0.03--
3. Treatment status †,ˆ−0.060.094 *--
4. Time since treatment0.47−0.14−0.28--
5. Distress−0.10 *0.030.11 *−0.18--
6. PTG0.040.07−0.070.16−0.13--
7. Self-distraction −0.180.08−0.01−0.080.210.09 *--
8. Active coping0.020.080.02−0.01−0.070.390.28--
9. Denial 0.000.010.11 *−0.09 *0.370.000.12−0.00--
10. Substance use −0.01−0.07−0.080.000.25−0.09 *0.11−0.050.22--
11. Emotional support −0.080.150.07−0.13−0.11 *0.270.170.33−0.10 *−0.09 *--
12. Behavioral disengage−0.05−0.10 *−0.05−0.020.51−0.210.08−0.220.370.26−0.21--
13. Venting −0.080.040.11 *−0.130.220.150.180.160.140.140.410.13--
14. Positive reframing −0.030.15−0.04−0.03−0.070.470.180.490.05−0.010.36−0.230.21--
15. Planning 0.010.070.04−0.040.070.340.260.590.05−0.030.31−0.10 *0.270.51--
16. Humour −0.170.020.05−0.140.09 *0.050.190.15−0.020.060.17−0.020.180.280.21--
17. Acceptance0.020.030.020.00−0.140.360.160.40−0.23−0.060.27−0.220.170.440.440.25--
18. Religion0.060.10 *−0.070.010.0120.490.060.290.04−0.060.21−0.080.140.370.26−0.030.25--
19. Self-blame−0.110.01−0.04−0.080.51−0.030.21−0.040.300.26−0.030.460.26−0.040.130.05−0.10 *0.06--
20. Instrumental support−0.09 *0.10 *0.03−0.11−0.040.320.180.39−0.02−0.120.69−0.140.410.360.400.180.260.28−0.01
Notes. behav disengage = behavioral disengagement, PTG = post-traumatic growth. † = point-biserial correlation, ‡ 1 = male, 2 = female, ˆ 1 = on-treatment, 2 = off-treatment. * p < 0.05; p < 0.01 are indicated in bold.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wurz, A.; Petrella, A.; Tulk, J.; Sabiston, C.M.; Schulte, F.; Bender, J.; D’Agostino, N.; Hou, S.H.J.; Eaton, G.; Chalifour, K.; et al. Describing and Exploring Coping Strategies among Those Diagnosed with Cancer as an Adolescent or Young Adult: A YACPRIME Study. Curr. Oncol. 2024, 31, 685-692. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31020050

AMA Style

Wurz A, Petrella A, Tulk J, Sabiston CM, Schulte F, Bender J, D’Agostino N, Hou SHJ, Eaton G, Chalifour K, et al. Describing and Exploring Coping Strategies among Those Diagnosed with Cancer as an Adolescent or Young Adult: A YACPRIME Study. Current Oncology. 2024; 31(2):685-692. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31020050

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wurz, Amanda, Anika Petrella, Joshua Tulk, Catherine M. Sabiston, Fiona Schulte, Jackie Bender, Norma D’Agostino, Sharon H. J. Hou, Geoff Eaton, Karine Chalifour, and et al. 2024. "Describing and Exploring Coping Strategies among Those Diagnosed with Cancer as an Adolescent or Young Adult: A YACPRIME Study" Current Oncology 31, no. 2: 685-692. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31020050

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop