Coping Strategies Used by Older Cancer Survivors During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Longitudinal Qualitative Study

Coping patterns associations with cognitive function in older adults

OBJECTIVE

Cognitive function may contribute to variability in older adults' ability to cope with chronic stress; however, limited research has evaluated this relationship. This study investigated the relationship between theoretically derived coping domains and cognitive function in 165 middle-to-older adults during the Omicron stage of COVID-19.

METHOD

Participants completed a clinical interview and self-report measures of health. The National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set neuropsychological battery was used to evaluate memory, language, executive function/speed, and working memory. Structural equation modeling evaluated the underlying factor structure of the Brief COPE adapted for COVID-19.

RESULTS

The data supported the proposed second-order Approach factor comprised of Problem-Solving and Emotion Regulation (ER) strategies and a first-order Avoidance factor. Higher Avoidance was associated with greater depression symptoms, lower income and worse memory, executive function, working memory, and verbal fluency performance. Higher Problem-Solving was associated with better verbal fluency performance. ER strategies were not significantly associated with cognitive function. The use of Problem-Solving was not associated with less Avoidance. Greater use of Problem-Solving, ER, and Avoidance were all associated with higher levels of stress. Post-hoc analyses found that higher Acceptance was the only coping strategy associated with less stress.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings demonstrate that older adults with worse cognitive function were more likely to use Avoidance during the pandemic, which could result in prolonged stress and adverse health consequences. Future research is warranted to investigate whether acceptance-based interventions reduce the avoidance and impact of stress on health in vulnerable older adults.

What do cancer survivors believe caused their cancer? A secondary analysis of cross-sectional survey data

PURPOSE

Given that risk reduction and healthy lifestyles can prevent 4 in 10 cancers, it is important to understand what survivors believe caused their cancer to inform educational initiatives.

METHODS

In this secondary analysis, we analyzed cancer survivor responses on the Causes Subscale of the Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire, which lists 18 possible causes of illness and a free text question. We used descriptive statistics to determine cancer survivors' agreement with the listed causes and conducted separate partial proportional odds models for the top three causes to examine their associations with sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Content analysis was used to examine free text responses.

RESULTS

Of the 1,001 participants, most identified as Caucasian (n = 764, 77%), female (n = 845, 85%), and were diagnosed with breast cancer (n = 656, 66%). The most commonly believed causes of cancer were: stress or worry (n = 498, 51%), pollution in the environment (n = 471, 48%), and chance or bad luck (n = 412, 42%). The associations of sociodemographic and clinical variables varied across the models. Free text responses indicated that hereditary and genetic causes (n = 223, 22.3%) followed by trauma and stress (n = 218, 21.8%) and bad luck or chance (n = 79, 7.9%) were the most important causes of cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Study results illuminate cancer survivors' beliefs about varying causes of their cancer diagnosis and identify characteristics of survivors who are more likely to believe certain factors caused their cancer. Results can be used to plan cancer education and risk-reduction campaigns and highlight for whom such initiatives would be most suitable.

Organization of psychosocial factors associated with worry about acquiring SARS-CoV-2 among women undergoing cancer treatment: an empirical network comparison approach

OBJECTIVES

Pandemic-induced anxiety can have adverse mental and somatic health consequences on cancer patients (CP). This study aimed to (1) explore the intricate relationships between worry related to potential SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 perception, sociodemographic factors, and the perceived effectiveness of lockdown measures and (2) investigate if these relationships differ between cancer patients and individuals without a history of cancer (IWHC).

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional quantitative study in France between December 1 and 14, 2020. Network analysis was employed on a sample of 1889 women, including 282 cancer patients and 1607 noncancer individuals.

RESULTS

Our findings indicate that CP were 20% more likely to express worry than IWHC. Anxiety is embedded within a complex network involving sociodemographic, cognitive, and emotional factors. The emotional components related to COVID-19 perception were found to play a crucial role. The networks for both groups were observed to be identical.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study underscores the heightened vulnerability of cancer patients to pandemic-induced anxiety, emphasizing the crucial role of emotional components related to COVID-19 perception. The observed similarities in the anxiety network between cancer patients and those without a history of cancer suggest that universal approaches might be effective across groups.

IMPLICATIONS

Utilizing the Causal Attitude Network Model, we propose potential methods for managing and reducing individual anxiety levels.