Self-complexity, the extent that people experience themselves as having a number of distinct and meaningful social roles, may have implications for young adults’ socio-emotional adjustment to romantic life events. Based on prior research, we hypothesized that participants who reported lower self-complexity would have worse adjustment to a negative event (not having a date on Valentine’s Day) but better adjustment to a positive event (having a date). Participants ( N = 325) completed measures of self-complexity and depression symptom severity at study entry. Approximately a month later, at the end of the day on Valentine’s Day, they completed a measure of emotion-regulation strategies and a reassessment of depression symptom severity. The hypothesized interaction was statistically significant; self-complexity was associated with better emotion-regulation ( R 2 = .15, p < .001) and depression outcomes ( R 2 = .05, p = .001) for non-daters, but worse outcomes for daters. Our findings suggest that self-complexity is related to self-regulation and has implications for adjustment to a range of life events.
Purpose To examine whether adults with cancer view affective forecasting as important for treatment decisions, and to examine these perceptions among key subgroups.Design Adults with cancer (N = 376) completed a cross-sectional survey that included demographic and clinical characteristics, the IPIP five-factor personality measure, and a rating of the perceived importance of affective forecasting for cancer treatment decisions. Descriptive statistics characterized the importance of affective forecasting. Multivariate analyses examined whether health and personality variables were associated with affective forecasting importance.Findings Most participants (89.6%) identified affective forecasting as important for treatment decisions. Affective forecasting was more likely to be rated as important among patients with prostate cancer (p < .001), patients lower in neuroticism (p = .02), and patients higher in agreeableness (p = .004).Conclusions/Implications: Patients believe it is important to understand how treatments will impact their emotional well-being. Oncology clinicians should discuss with patients these consequences during healthcare decision-making.
Background: Geographic disparities in access to palliative care cause unnecessary suffering near the end-of-life in low-access U.S. states. The psychological mechanisms accounting for state-level variation are poorly understood. Objective: To examine whether statewide differences in personality account for variation in palliative care access. Design: We combined 5 state-level datasets that included the 50 states and national capital. Palliative care access was measured by the Center to Advance Palliative Care 2015 state-by-state report card. State-level personality differences in openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, and extraversion were identified in a report on 619,387 adults. The Census and Gallup provided covariate data. Regression analyses examined whether state-level personality predicted state-level palliative care access, controlling for population size, age, gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and political views. Sensitivity analyses controlled for rurality, nonprofit status, and hospital size. Results: Palliative care access was higher in states that were older, less racially diverse, higher in socioeconomic status, more liberal, and, as hypothesized, higher in openness. In regression analyses accounting for all predictors and covariates, higher openness continued to account for better state-level access to palliative care (β = 0.428, p = 0.008). Agreeableness also emerged as predicting better access. In sensitivity analyses, personality findings persisted, and less rural states and those with more nonprofits had better access. Conclusions: Palliative care access is worse in states lower in openness, meaning where residents are more skeptical, traditional, and concrete. Personality theory offers recommendations for palliative care advocates communicating with administrators, legislators, philanthropists, and patients to expand access in low-openness states.
34 Background: Palliative care is underutilized by patients with cancer. Understanding differences in preferences is critical for promoting access. This study tested the hypothesis that women would be more favorably disposed toward palliative care than men. Methods: Two samples of individuals with cancer ( N = 633 and N = 413) provided data on demographics and self-reported health and completed the Palliative Care Preferences Scale, a multifaceted assessment that measures emotional, cognitive, and behavioral aspects of preferences. We conducted t-tests to examine gender differences in palliative preferences in each sample, and analysis of covariance to examine the difference while controlling for age, race/ethnicity, education, cancer type, time since diagnosis, and presence of metastases. Results: As hypothesized, t-tests revealed a significant difference of palliative care preferences across gender for both samples ( p < .001 and p = .020) with women preferring palliative care more so than men. Findings were comparable when controlling for age, race/ethnicity, education, cancer type, time since diagnosis, and presence of metastases ( p = .018 and p = .015). Analysis of the cognitive subscale revealed that relative to men, women viewed palliative care as more efficacious ( p < .001 and p < .001). Conclusions: Findings across the two samples demonstrate greater preferences for palliative care among women than men. Future research should examine whether psychoeducational interventions can be tailored based on gender to increase preferences for palliative care.
Objective: Social support is fundamentally important to the well-being of patients with cancer, and informal caregivers often wish they had better insight into how to help. The aims of this study were to quantify the types of social support that patients qualitatively expressed as important, and examine whether demographics and mental health symptoms explained the type of support desired.Methods: A sample of 82 patients with cancer (Gender: 65.9% Male, Age: M = 57.5, Race/Ethnicity: 90.2% White, non-Latino/a) completed measures of demographics, health, anxiety, and depression, and responded to an open-ended question asking them to list three types of support that they desire from their caregivers. These responses were then reliably coded into 18 different categories.Results: Most commonly, participants expressed a desire for companionship (45%). Other common requests included empathy (33%), home care support (28%), information support (16%), being treated the same (15%), and help with appointments (13%). Patients who were more anxious were more likely to desire companionship (OR = 4.41, p = .033), and younger patients were more likely to desire home care support (OR = 7.24, p = .016).Conclusion: Findings have implications for providing individually-tailored social support to patients with cancer.
57 Background: There are geographic disparities in access to palliative care that cause unnecessary suffering near the end of life in low-access U.S. states. The psychological mechanisms explaining state-by-state variation in access to palliative care are poorly understood. Our objective was to examine whether state-level differences in personality explain state-by-state variation in palliative care access. Methods: We combined four datasets with state-level data for the 50 U.S. states and the national capitol. Palliative care access was measured by the Center to Advance Palliative Care 2015 state-by-state report card. Statewide personality differences were identified from a report on 619,387 adults who completed the well-validated Big Five Inventory, which assesses the five core personality dimensions: openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, and extraversion. The U.S. Census and Gallup provided data on covariates. Regression analyses examined whether state-level differences in personality predicted statewide access to palliative care, controlling for differences in population size, age, gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and political views. Results: Access to palliative care was worse in states that were younger, more racially diverse, lower in socioeconomic status, more politically conservative, and lower in openness. In regression analyses that simultaneously accounted for all predictors and covariates, only lower openness continued to explain worse state-level access to palliative care (β = 0.428, p = 0.008). Conclusions: Palliative care access is worse in states where people are lower in openness, meaning residents who are more skeptical, traditional, and concrete. Personality theory offers specific recommendations for palliative care advocates communicating with hospital administrators, legislators, philanthropists, and patients to expand access in low-openness states.
