as below
contentserver__5_.pdf
Aging & Mental Health, January 2007; 11(1): 89–98
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The relationship of optimism, pain and social support to well-being in
older adults with osteoarthritis
V. M. FERREIRA & A. M. SHERMAN
Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, US
(Received 30 August 2005; accepted 13 March 2006)
Abstract Improving the psychological well-being of individuals with osteoarthritis (OA) is an important concern because the condition is highly prevalent and has no known cure. Few studies have assessed the joint contribution of social, personality, and physical factors in relation to well-being for OA patients. In a cross-sectional sample of older adults with OA (n¼ 73, 73% female), we assessed the role of support perceptions, optimism and pain in depressive symptoms and life satisfaction. Greater optimism and support were significantly related to both greater life satisfaction and lower depressive symptoms. Further, optimism partially mediated the relationship of pain to life satisfaction, while support partially mediated the role of pain in depressive symptoms. The interplay of these variables in relation to well-being is discussed in the context of chronic illness and older adulthood.
Introduction
Many older adults (85% of those over 75) currently experience a painful and often disabling disease, osteoarthritis (OA), for which there is no known cure (Sack, 1995). Osteoarthritis can negatively impact many aspects of life, including both social and physical functioning (Bookwala, Harralson, & Parmalee, 2003) through pain, physical and psycho- social limitations on valued activities, as well as comorbid depressive symptoms (Penninx et al., 1998). It is important to investigate factors that relate to psychological health outcomes of OA patients in order to better understand how to improve well-being. As Keefe and his colleagues suggest (Keefe & Bonk, 1999; Keefe et al., 2002), there exists a complex interplay of symptomology, social and psychological factors in arthritis patients. In the following sections, we review the role of optimism, social support, and pain as important correlates of psychological well-being, particularly for older adults.
Pain
The common and persistent nature of pain asso- ciated with OA (Schumacker, 1988) may be a reason for the variability in the well-being of OA patients (e.g., de Vellis et al., 1986; Klinger, Spaulding, Polatajko, MacKinnon, & Miller, 1999). Pain has a strong relationship with many other health- related variables in older adults with arthritis
(Roberts, Matecjyck, & Anthony, 1996). In OA samples, greater pain is a stressor linked to lower social support and well-being (de Vellis et al., 1986). Pain is also associated with greater depressive symptoms (Bookwala et al., 2003; Klinger et al., 1999) and lower life satisfaction (Laborde & Powers, 1985) in patients with OA. However, Blixen and Kippes (1999) present contrasting evidence showing that pain from OA is unrelated to life satisfaction when social support is accounted for, suggesting that support mediates the negative impact of pain.
Such a finding suggests that the role of psycho- social factors in the well-being of OA patients may be important to investigate. While the pain associated with OA is difficult to control, often with negative effects on well-being, understanding factors that may serve as points of intervention would allow for a better understanding of how to improve patients’ well- being. Thus, in the following sections, we review optimism and social support, two factors commonly linked to psychological well-being outcomes such as life satisfaction and depressive symptoms.
Optimism
Optimism, defined as an individual’s positive outlook on life (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994), is a dispositional (i.e., temperament) variable related to adaptation to chronic illness (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Optimism is related to both improved
Correspondence: V. M. Ferreira, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, US. E-mail: [email protected]
ISSN 1360-7863 print/ISSN 1364-6915 online/07/010089–98 � 2007 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/13607860600736166
psychosocial and physical health outcomes (Barnwell & Kavanaugh, 1997; Brenner, Melamed, & Panush, 1994), as well as less frequent harmful health behaviours (i.e., frequent and excessive drinking in college students; Harju & Bolen, 1998). Greater optimism is also related to greater self-reported quality of life in adult samples (Barnwell & Kavanaugh, 1997).
Scheier and Carver (1987) argue that optimism plays a protective role in chronic illness by promot- ing more beneficial health outcomes, health habits, and effective disease coping. For example, optimism is not only associated with less severe physical symptomology (Reker & Wong, 1985), but also with electing to follow health-promoting practices as well as coping in healthy, helpful ways with chronic illness (Fournier, deRidder, & Bensing, 2002). However, the beneficial role of optimism differs across chronic illnesses.
For example, Fournier et al. (2002) report differing beneficial effects of optimistic beliefs on various facets of coping with chronic diseases such as type I diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and multiple sclerosis (MS) in adults. That is, in the chronic illnesses which are controllable (type I diabetes), or at least in part controllable (MS), positive outcome expectancies are associated with greater physical functioning. This is not the case with the much less controllable illness of RA. Further, in a study comparing patients with Parkinson’s disease to those with MS, greater optimism was related to greater physical adjustment to disease symptoms as well as greater use of effective coping strategies (deRidder, Scheier, & Bensing, 2000). However, the relationship between optimism and coping was stronger among MS patients, compared to patients experiencing Parkinson’s. The authors suggest the need to focus on a specific chronic illness in understanding the role of optimism in disease.
Fournier et al. (2002) discuss the several types of optimism that have been established and that, when the illness is controllable (i.e., when symptoms or side effects can be controlled by patients’ behaviors), positive outcome expectancies are the most bene- ficial type of optimism for chronically ill patients. Holding positive outcome expectancies suggests that individuals are generally oriented towards positive expectations of future events (Scheier & Carver, 1992). Fournier et al. (2002) discuss the benefit of positive outcome expectancies in the cases of such illnesses as Type I diabetes and, to some extent, RA, because in such cases optimistic (i.e., positive outcome) beliefs may lead to effective-self care as well as physical and mental health. In the present study, positive outcome expectancies were assessed. Although OA is not necessarily controllable, the pain experienced from OA can often be controlled through self-management strategies such as exercise or the use of pain medication, behaviours closely
associated with optimistic beliefs, even though the occurrence of pain is often unpredictable (Sack, 1995), thus making positive outcome expectancies an appropriate choice for this sample.
Positive outcome expectancies, also known as dispositional optimism, are predictive of more positive affect and less negative affect over time in older adults (Isaacowitz & Seligman, 2002). Optimism is also predictive of psychological well- being. For example, greater optimism predicts less depression three years after baseline in menopausal women after controlling for initial depression (Bromberger & Matthews, 1996). Dispositional optimism is related to greater psychological well- being in older adults, including fewer depressive symptoms and greater life satisfaction (Peterson & Bossio, 1991). Optimism is believed to be related to greater psychological well-being because being optimistic is associated with effective coping strate- gies (e.g., Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989). For example, optimists are more likely to use problem-focused coping strategies (e.g., Scheier & Carver, 1987).
In Long and Sangster’s (1993) work on optimism and coping specifically in the context of arthritis, greater optimism influenced the use of active or problem-solving coping techniques, a type of effective coping beneficial to health and well-being. This active coping reduced negative symptoms such as depressive symptoms in RA patients. In looking specifically at an OA sample of older adults, greater dispositional optimism was related to use of pain-coping strategies more frequently, even when level of pain was controlled (Benyamini, 2005).
However, little research currently explores the relationship between optimism and the pain asso- ciated with OA, especially in later life. In one study that specifically addressed the role of dispositional optimism in the physical functioning of older adults with knee OA, Brenes and colleagues (2002) report that optimism was positively related to task perfor- mance in walking. However, optimism was not related to performance in lifting objects, climbing stairs, or getting in and out of cars in their sample. Brenes, Rapp, and Rejeski (2002) did not explore the role of optimism and physical factors such as pain, or psychological well-being in their investi- gation. These factors will be addressed in the present study.
Stability of optimism. While optimism is considered to be generally stable (Scheier & Carver, 1987), Benyamini (2005) suggests that reports of optimism, as measured by items on the LOT-R, the measure used in the present study, may be dependent on the time-frame and/or context within which the measure was administered. Benyamini (2005) argues that, in his sample of older adults experiencing OA, optimism may be more easily influenced than with other samples for two reasons; because participants
90 V. M. Ferreira & A. M. Sherman
are experiencing late life as well as a stressful health context. If this is the case, it is conceivable that perceived social support, reported to both affect and be affected by health stressors such as physical functioning (Reinhardt & Blieszner, 2000), may play a role in reports of optimism. In addition, adaptation to chronic illness (Gil, Keefe, Crisson, & Van Dalfsen, 1987) as well as pain (de Vellis et al., 1986) may both be contextual factors affecting reports of optimism. In an example of the less- stable nature of optimism in chronic illness samples, Symister and Friend (2003) report that in a sample of end-stage renal disease patients, social support was predictive of optimism. The role of optimism along with other psychosocial as well as symptomol- ogy variables such as pain in the well-being of older adults has not yet thoroughly been investigated. Understanding such relationships is important in that these variables together may play a more complex role in well-being than is currently believed to be the case. For example, health-related interven- tions may need to be sensitive to personality dimensions such as optimism. In addition, beliefs in optimistic expectancies do decrease in the context of significant, repetitive stress (e.g., Bandura, 1988; Carver et al., 1998) such as the disability and persistent pain associated with OA. While not yet thoroughly investigated, some literature does suggest that reports of optimism may be influenced by health context (Schulz, Tompkins, & Rau, 1988). Schulz et al. (1988) report that in stroke victims and their support persons, optimism scores dropped over the six month period after the stroke. In addition, Benyamini (2005) discusses the possibility that, particularly in older adults, reports of optimistic expectations may be dependent upon more short- term contextual factors, such as the health context of pain. While an individual’s disposition, including optimism, is an important predictor of well-being, so too is the social aspect of one’s life (Finch & Graziano, 2001). Thus, social support perceptions, one facet of social support, will be reviewed in the following section.
Social support
Social support is defined as the resources perceived as available from others in social networks (Antonucci, 1993; Berkman, Glass, Brissette, & Seeman, 2000; Bisconti & Bergeman, 1999). Support involves the beneficial receipt of provisions in relationships, including informational, emotional, or tangible aid. Support is often assessed subjectively as an individual’s perception of the support they perceive as available to them. Perceptions of support are related to health, including symptoms associated with chronic illness, in addition to well-being variables such as life satisfaction (Antonucci & Knipscheer, 1990; Cummins & Nistico, 2002). In older adults, perceived support is linked to
fewer depressive symptoms (Finch & Graziano, 2001; Russell & Cutrona, 1991) and greater life satisfaction (Walen & Lachman, 2000). Looking specifically at older adults with OA, social support is associated with fewer depressive symptoms (Sherman, 2003) as well as less arthritis pain (Evers, Kraaimaat, Geenen, & Bijlsma, 1998). Research also suggests that perceptions of social support may contribute to positive well-being (Blixen & Kippes, 1999) by positively affecting such facets of coping as support seeking as a resource (e.g., Scheier & Carver, 1987).
There has been some speculation about the combined role of optimism and social support in psychological functioning. For example, Finch and Graziano (2001) reported that greater optimism and social support were each uniquely related to lower depressive symptoms in a general sample of older adults. That is, more optimistic older adults, and those reporting higher social support, reported fewer depressive symptoms. However, physical stressors, such as pain, have not been investigated jointly with support and optimism in relation to well-being, particularly for OA. This is a gap that should not be ignored because physical stressors are strongly related to poor psychological outcomes such as greater depressive symptoms (e.g., Evers et al., 1998).
We suggest that experiencing more pain may be related to individuals’ tendencies not to view their world in an optimistic, positive light and thus, these individuals may report less well-being. While this hypothesis has not yet been tested in the literature, less pain, like greater optimism in older adults, is associated with better psychological well-being in OA samples (de Vellis et al., 1986). In addition, we suggest that experiencing more pain may be related to individuals’ tendencies not to view their relationships as positive and supportive and thus, these individuals may report less well-being.
Thus, in the present study, the stressor of pain, a common symptom of OA, as well as social support and dispositional optimism were investigated in an effort to understand the role that these different factors play in the depressive symptoms and life satisfaction reported by older adults with OA.
Hypotheses
1. Greater pain is hypothesized to be associated with less life satisfaction and greater depressive symptoms.
2. Greater optimism and social support are expected to relate to less depressive symptoms and greater life satisfaction after accounting for pain.
3. Two possible mediation models will be tested. The first will assess the role of optimism in mediating the relationship of pain to life satisfac- tion and depressive symptoms. The second will
Optimism, pain, social support in well-being 91
assess the role of support in mediating the relationship of pain to life satisfaction and depressive symptoms.
Method
Participants and procedure
Ninety-five potential participants were contacted by telephone from a list of participants from a previous OA study (see Ferreira & Sherman, 2006). The original sample had been recruited through newspaper advertisements, fliers, and recruitment through a continuing education program for older adults. Of the original participants, 72 older adults (52 women and 20 men, ranging in age from 60 to 84, mean age¼ 72.4 years) volunteered to participate in the present study (response rate of 76%). Participants completed and returned the mailed survey. Follow-up data were used rather than baseline data because optimism was not measured at baseline.
There were no significant demographic differences between responders and non-responders. Participants all resided in the greater Boston area and spoke fluent English. The majority (92.6%) of participants considered themselves Caucasian. Nearly half of the participants (45.2%, n¼ 33) were married, 27.4% (n¼20) were widowed, and 26% (n¼ 19) were single, divorced or separated. See Table I for additional demographic information. There were no significant differences in depressive symptoms (t¼�0.80, ns) or pain (t¼ 1.28, ns) in those who did or did not respond.
Measures
Optimism was assessed using the Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994), which examines outcome expectancies. The measure consists of 12 items, including four filler items not included in the analyses, for a total of
eight items. Great debate has surrounded the use of the LOT in its entirety as a measure of optimism (with negatively worded items being reverse coded) or as a measure of both optimism and pessimism (with two subscales being conceptualized as separate constructs. While Scheier and Carver (1987) have suggested the scale may be used as a bipolar measure, research has suggested that optimism and pessimism are very different constructs (e.g., Brenes, Rapp, Rejeski, & Miller, 2002; Lai, 1994; Marshall, Wortman, Kusulas, Hervig, & Vickers, 1992). In light of this controversy, the four positively worded items assessing optimism were used. Response options utilized a five-point Likert scale. Higher scores indicate greater optimism (M¼ 13.26, SD¼2.89, high score¼20). Reliability was 0.76 with this sample.
Social support was assessed using the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Social Support Survey (Sherbourne & Stewart, 1991) which examines perceived social support (M¼ 65.06, SD¼ 18.44, high score¼ 95). Higher scores indicate greater perceived support. Sherbourne & Stewart (1991) report high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha¼ 0.97), which was replicated in this sample (Cronbach’s alpha¼ 0.97).
Pain was assessed using the pain subscale of the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) 36-item short- form survey (SF-36; Ware & Sherbourne, 1992). The SF-36 includes self-report items of health perceptions, physical functioning, role limitations and pain. The pain subscale includes two items, which are summed so that a higher score indicates more pain (M¼ 5.85, SD¼ 1.91, high score¼ 10).
Depressive symptoms were assessed using the 20-item Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977). The CES-D includes 20 items assessing emotional (‘I could not stop crying’) and somatic symptoms (‘I had trouble sleeping’) characteristic of depressed mood. Response options are on a four-point Likert type scale with possible responses ranging from ‘all of the time’ to ‘rarely’ (M¼ 26.25, SD¼ 8.8, high score¼ 40). Reliability was 0.84 with this sample. Higher scores indicate more depressive symptomatology.
Life satisfaction was assessed with the Life Satisfaction Index (LSI; Neugarten, Havinghurst, & Tobin, 1961). The scale consists of 13 items using a five-point Likert-type format for response options (M¼ 41.31, SD¼ 10.14, high score¼ 61). A higher score means more life satisfaction. Reliability was 0.89 with this sample.
Data analysis
In order to investigate the role of pain, optimism and perceived social support in depressive symptoms and life satisfaction, hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted. In the first step of each
Table I. Demographic characteristics, n¼ 73.
No. (%)
Marital status Married 33 (45.2) Widowed 20 (27.4) Single/divorced/separated 19 (26.0) No response 1 (1.4)
Education Bachelor’s degree or greater 42 (57.5) Some college 13 (17.8) Associate’s degree 4 (5.5) High school diploma or less 10 (13.7) No response 4 (5.5)
Income (annual) �20,000 23 (31.5) >20,001 48 (65.8) No response 2 (2.7)
92 V. M. Ferreira & A. M. Sherman
regression, age was entered. In the second step for each regression, pain was entered.
To assess the potentially mediating roles of optimism and support to pain, two multiple regres- sion models were developed. In these two regression analyses, life satisfaction and depressive symptoms were each assessed as an outcome. In each of these models, after age and pain were entered in steps one and two, support was entered at the third step of the model, followed by optimism at the fourth step. This model investigated the role of either optimism or support as mediators of pain in relation to the outcomes (see Figure 1).
In order to assess the role of either support or optimism as a mediator of pain, three aspects to the mediation model must be assessed (Baron & Kenny, 1986). In the first leg of the model, the association of pain to the outcome must be significant. Next, pain must significantly predict the mediator (support or optimism). Finally, in the third leg of the model, the relationship of pain to the outcome must be reduced to non-significance once the mediator (support or optimism) is entered into the model. Only when all three of these criteria are met will mediation be demonstrated (see Figure 1;
Baron & Kenny, 1986). Follow-up Sobel tests will then be conducted to test for partial mediation (Preacher & Leonardelli, 2003).
Results
Bivariate analyses
Correlations between the variables measured in the present study are reported in Table II. Gender, marital status, and income were excluded from further multivariate analyses to conserve power because they were not related to any of the other measures. Age was used as a control variable because older age was correlated with lower life satisfaction. Pain was significantly correlated with greater depres- sive symptoms and less life satisfaction. Support and optimism were both significantly correlated with fewer depressive symptoms and greater life satisfaction.
Multivariate analyses
Life satisfaction. In the first hierarchical multiple regression model with life satisfaction as an outcome,
(a)
(b)
Pain
Social support
Depressive symptoms Life satisfaction
Pain
Optimism
Depressive symptoms Life satisfaction
Figure 1. (a) Role of optimism as a mediator; (b) Role of social support as a mediator.
Table II. Correlations of measures.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Age – �0.12 0.04 �0.04 0.14 �0.14 �0.04 0.10 �0.29* Gender – – �0.13 0.09 �0.17 0.03 0.01 0.02 �0.09 Income – – – �0.18 �0.06 0.08 0.10 �0.16 0.12 Marital status – – – – �0.01 �0.14 0.01 0.22 0.03 Pain – – – – – �0.28* �0.30* 0.43** �0.46** Social support – – – – – – 0.07 �0.44** 0.41** Optimism – – – – – – – �0.53** 0.64** Depressive symptoms – – – – – – – – �0.64** Life satisfaction – – – – – – – – –
*p50.05; **p50.01.
Optimism, pain, social support in well-being 93
we assessed the role of pain, perceptions of social support, and optimism, with optimism as a possible mediator of the relationship of pain to life satisfaction. The final model was significant (F (4,63)¼ 20.13, p50.01, adjusted R2
¼0.53; see Table III). Greater age was significantly related to higher life satisfaction at the first step and throughout the model (R2
¼ 0.08, F (1,66)¼5.36, p50.05). In the second step, less pain was related to greater life satisfaction (�R2
¼0.12, F (1,65)¼9.69, p50.01). Perceived social support explained addi- tional variance (�R2
¼ 0.06, F (1,64)¼4.98, p50.01) when entered at the third step. Greater support was related to more life satisfaction, while pain remained significant. Support remained sig- nificant at the fourth step (t¼2.75, p50.01). However, the relationship of pain to life satisfaction was reduced to non-significance once optimism was entered in the fourth step of the model (t¼ 1.46, ns). Greater optimism was significantly related to life satisfaction at this step (�R2
¼0.31, F (1,63)¼ 45.08, p50.01). This model suggests that optimism should be tested as a partial mediator of pain (Baron & Kenny, 1986). The relationship of pain as a predictor of optimism was significant (F (1, 70)¼ 7.69, p50.01, adjusted R2
¼ 0.09). This finding suggests that pain may be partially mediated by optimism in relation to life satisfaction. A mediation analysis was conducted assessing opti- mism as a mediator of pain. The Sobel mediation test was significant (t¼�2.54, p¼ 0.01), suggesting that optimism does partially mediate the relationship
of pain to life satisfaction (Preacher & Leonardelli, 2003). Full mediation is not demonstrated because the beta values were not reduced to zero (Baron & Kenny, 1986). There was no evidence that support mediated pain in the analysis.
Depressive symptoms. In the hierarchical multiple regression model assessing the role of optimism, pain and support in their relationship to depressive symptoms, we assessed the possible role of optimism as a mediator of pain. The final model was significant (F (4,62)¼14.68, p50.01, adjusted R2
¼0.45; see Table IV). Age was not significantly related to depressive symptoms at the first step, or throughout the model. In the second step, more pain was related to greater depressive symptoms (�R2
¼ 0.16, F (1,64)¼ 12.13, p50.01). Perceived social support explained additional variance (�R2
¼ 0.12, F (1,63)¼10.85, p50.01) when entered at the third step. Less support was related to greater depressive symptoms, while pain remained significant though was reduced in its statistical relationship. The relationship of pain to depression was reduced to non-significance once optimism was entered in the fourth step of the model, where lower optimism and support were both related to higher depressive symptoms (�R2
¼ 0.45, F (1,62)¼ 24.06, p50.01). This model suggests that both optimism and pain should be tested as possible mediators of pain in relation to depressive symptoms (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
Table III. Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for life satisfaction showing optimism as a mediator (n¼ 70).
1 2 3 4
Step B SE B � B SE B � B SE B � B SE B �
Age 0.46 0.20 0.27* 0.37 0.19 0.22* 0.34 0.14 0.20* 0.33 0.14 0.20* Pain – – – �1.62 0.52 �0.35** �1.34 0.52 �0.29* �0.61 0.42 �0.13 Support – – – – – – 0.13 0.06 0.25* 0.12 0.05 0.24** Optimism – – – – – – – – – 1.93 0.29 0.58** Adjusted R2 – – – 0.06* – – – 0.17** – – – 0.22* – – – 0.53**
*p50.05; **p50.01.
Table IV. Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for depressive symptoms showing optimism as a mediator (n¼ 70).
1 2 3 4
Step B SE B � B SE B � B SE B � B SE B �
Age �0.12 0.19 �0.08 �0.30 0.18 �0.02 0.02 0.17 0.01 0.02 0.14 0.01 Pain – – – 1.74 0.50 0.40** 1.35 0.48 0.31 0.81 0.43 0.19 Support – – – – – – �0.18 0.05 �0.36** �0.17 0.05 �0.35** Optimism – – – – – – – – – �1.45 0.30 �0.46** Adjusted R2 – – – 0.01* – – – 0.14** – – – 0.25* – – – 0.45**
*p50.05; **p50.01.
94 V. M. Ferreira & A. M. Sherman
Support as a mediator. The relationship of pain to support was significant (F (1, 70)¼ 5.16, p50.05, adjusted R2
¼0.06). Finally, because the first two legs of the mediation model were significant, a Sobel test was used to assess the final leg of the mediation model. The mediation test was significant (t¼1.98, p¼0.05). This finding suggests that pain is partially mediated by support in relation to depressive symptoms. There was no evidence that optimism mediated pain in this analysis.
Optimism as a mediator. The relationship of pain to optimism was assessed to be significant (F (1, 70)¼ 7.69, p50.01, adjusted R2
¼ 0.09). As was done in the previous analysis, because the first two legs of the mediation model were significant, a Sobel test was used to assess the final leg of the mediation model. The mediation test was not significant (t¼ 0.06, ns). This finding suggests that pain is not mediated by optimism in relation to depressive symptoms.
Discussion
In the present study, we investigated the role of social relations, optimism and the common symp- tom of pain in the well-being of older adults experiencing OA. The findings suggest that pain, social support and optimism, are related in complex ways for this sample. Furthermore, these findings suggest that these factors relate in unique ways depending upon the outcome being investigated.
Life satisfaction
In investigating life satisfaction, pain was partially mediated by optimism, while support was indepen- dently related to life satisfaction. These results suggest that optimism is partially responsible for the relationship between pain and life satisfaction, possibly by negatively influencing the optimistic outlook that is associated with life satisfaction. This finding that optimism partially mediated pain has important implications for our understanding of the process by which pain is related to psychological well-being (Bookwala et al., 2003; Klinger et al., 1999; Labourde & Powers, 1985; Robert et al., 1996). An optimistic disposition appears to at least be partially diminished by reports of pain, a contextual factor which OA patients may struggle with on a daily basis through the rest of their lives (Schumacker, 1988). As discussed previously in our literature review, although considered to be generally stable (Scheier & Carver, 1987), research suggests that optimism may be dependent upon the context within which it was assessed (Benyamini, 2005). Optimism may be salient for well-being in older adults because, similar to personality constructs such as hardiness (Wallace, Bisconti, & Bergeman, 2001), an optimistic personality may act as a resource in
helping older adults to compensate for other losses in resources as they age (Baltes, 1996).
Support did not mediate the relationship of pain to life satisfaction. Instead, support was directly linked to this outcome. This finding is consistent with much research suggesting the strong relation- ship of support to greater well-being (e.g., Cummins & Nistico, 2002; Russell & Cutrona, 1991; Walen & Lachman, 2000). As discussed in the introduction, support has been demonstrated to play an important role in both physical health as well as well-being (Antonucci & Knipscheer, 1990; Cummins & Nistico, 2002).
Depressive symptoms
In contrast to the findings for life satisfaction, for depressive symptoms, there was no evidence of mediation of pain by optimism. However, support partially mediated pain in relation to depressive symptoms. That is, the relationship of greater pain to greater depressive symptoms appears to at least in part be accounted for by the relationship of less support to greater depressive symptoms where older adults experiencing more pain may perceive their social networks as less supportive and thus, report greater depressive symptoms.
This mediational role of perceived support con- tributes support to the work of Antonucci, Langfahl, and Akiyama (2004) who suggest that new research should investigate predictors of support perceptions as many contextual factors may play a role in perceptions of social relations. In the case of our findings, the context of consistent pain associated with OA is demonstrated as a contextual fact playing a role in support perceptions.
Support seems to be a powerful resource for this sample, with pain working indirectly through sup- port to influence depressive symptoms. This finding is consistent with a wealth of research suggesting not only that perceived social support cyclically affects and is affected by health stressors (e.g., Gil et al., 1987; Reinhardt & Blieszner, 2000), but also that social support plays a complex role in the relation- ship of health variables to psychological well-being outcomes (e.g., Bisconti & Bergeman, 1999).
In summary, in this sample, optimism partially mediated pain perceptions in relation to life satisfac- tion while support partially mediated pain percep- tions in relation to depressive symptoms. Taken together, the findings of the present study are difficult to explain. Why does optimism play a mediational role in the relationship of pain to life satisfaction while support mediates the relationship of pain to depressive symptoms? The reasons remain unclear. Follow-up analyses with different samples of older adults experiencing OA are necessary for two reasons. First, such analyses would either replicate or refute these findings. And second, if the present findings are supported, differences in the
Optimism, pain, social support in well-being 95
sample may shed light on the mechanisms by which these unique and interesting findings have occurred. Longitudinal, as opposed to the cross-sectional data used in the present study, are suggested in order to provide a more rigorous test of mediation in follow- up research. In addition to these limitations, other limitations to the present study do exist, a few of which will be highlighted next.
Limitations and future research
The small, non-random nature of our sample may result in somewhat limited generalizability. Replication of this study with a more representative sample may provide stronger statistical evidence for the role of support and optimism as mediators of pain in well-being in samples of older adults with OA. However, our demonstration of significant patterns of association in such a small sample indicates that the interplay of these variables should be a fruitful arena for further investigation.
In addition, the self-report nature of the measures means that shared method variance could be a problem. Future research could replicate this study with additional observed measures of physical functioning in order to assess the role of physical impairment and symptoms in well-being while still taking into account personality and social relations factors.
In addition, the findings suggest that future research might examine whether other health related stressors such as physical limitations, account for more of the variance in well-being than pain. In this way, the physical symptoms of OA might be better understood in terms of how they affect the overall experience of the patient.
Additional suggestions for future research include investigating the role of other dispositional variables in the well-being outcomes of OA patients, in an effort to provide insight into how to better improve the well-being of individuals suffering from pain. For example, the personality variable of hardiness is negatively linked to both self-reported and objective measures of health in older adults (Wallace et al., 2001). This may indicate the importance of person- ality as a resource that allows older adults to compensate for losses and changes as they age (Baltes, 1996). Finally, longitudinal work is sug- gested to look at the significance of all three areas of life (social, personality, and physical) in their relationships to well-being. As mentioned above, optimism and support may be a powerful factor in contributing to well-being due to its value in compensating for other losses in later life.
Interventions
Although follow-up research is necessary, the pre- sent findings lead us to suggest further research into two approaches to intervention aimed at improving
the well-being of older adults experiencing OA. While pain is a symptom of OA that is difficult to control entirely, our findings of support acting as a mediator of pain to depressive symptoms and of optimism mediating the role of pain in life satisfac- tion suggests that focusing on these two psychosocial facets may be an efficacious way to approach intervention strategies. For example, a focus might be placed on working with OA patients and their partners or close family members to strengthen relationships as well as raise awareness in the patient of the social support available to them. Zautra, Hamilton, and Yocum (2000) report that, in their sample of older women experiencing rheumatoid arthritis, interventions designed to enhance social engagement not only improved psychological well-being immediately, but also increased illness coping capacity when assessed four months later. In addition, interventions might focus on increasing positive outcome expectancies, a psychosocial factor considered to be less stable in samples experiencing a chronic condition (Benyamini, 2005).
Conclusion
In summary, our results indicate that pain has a complex relationship with facets of well-being, both life satisfaction and freedom from depressive symp- toms, in older adults experiencing OA. That is, the effect of pain on perceptions of well-being is influenced by both personality and social relations variables. Being optimistic appears to mediate the relationship of pain in life satisfaction while support appears to mediate pain in relation to depressive symptoms. While the mediational role of support in health context and well-being relationships is well- documented, the mediational role of optimism is much more recent. Thus, investigation of these findings in additional samples of older adults experiencing OA, as well as other chronic illness samples is suggested in order to better understand these findings.
This is one of the only studies to look at the role of support, pain, and optimism together in an OA sample. This investigation has afforded us some insight into some aspects of life that allow older adults to maintain a sense of well-being in the face of the challenging disease of OA. Although all three variables had been established as individually important to well-being, the contribution of the present results lies in showing the importance of both optimism and support in well-being independent of other factors, as well as serving as a mediator of physical factors in relation to depressive symptoms and life satisfaction. We have demon- strated the joint contribution of both positive social relationships as well as a positive outlook on life
96 V. M. Ferreira & A. M. Sherman
in contributing to the well-being of older adults with OA.
References
Antonucci, T. C. (1993). Attachment: From youth through adulthood. In R. Kastenbaum (Ed.), Encyclopedia of adult
development (pp. 40–44). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Antonucci, T. C., & Knipscheer, C. P. M. (1990). Social network
research: Review and perspectives. In C. P. M. Knipsheer & T. C. Antonucci (Eds.), Social network research (pp. 161–174). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Antonucci, T. C., Langfahl, E. S., & Akiyama, H. (2004). Relationships as outcomes and contexts. In F. R. Lang & K. L. Fingerman (Eds.), Growing together: Personal relationships
across the lifespan (pp. 24–44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arthritis Foundation (Retrieved May 17, 2005). www.arthritis.org
Baltes, M. M. (1996). The many faces of dependency in old age. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1988). Self-regulation of motivation and action through goal systems. In V. Hamilton, G. H. Bower & N. H. Frijda (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on emotion and
motivation (pp. 37–61). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Barnwell, A. M., & Kavanaugh, D. J. (1997). Prediction of psychological adjustment to multiple sclerosis. Social Science
and Medicine, 45, 411–418. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Benyamini, Y. (2005). Can high optimism and high pessimism co-exist? Findings from arthritis patients coping with pain. Personality & Individual Differences, 38, 1463–1473.
Berkman, L. F., Glass, T., Brissette, I., & Seeman, T. E. (2000). From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Social Science and Medicine, 51, 843–857.
Bisconti, T. L., & Bergeman, C. S. (1999). Perceived social control as a mediator of the relationships among social support, psychological well-being, and perceived health. The
Gerontologist, 39, 94–103. Blixen, C. E., & Kippes, C. (1999). Depression, social support,
and quality of life in older adults with osteoarthritis. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 31, 221–226.
Bookwala, J., Harralson, T. L., & Parmalee, P. A. (2003). Effects of pain and well-being in older adults with osteoarthritis of the knee. Psychology and Aging, 18, 844–850.
Brenes, G. A., Rapp, S. R., Rajeski, W. J., & Miller, M. E. (2002). Do optimism and pessimism predict physical functioning? Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 25, 219–231.
Brenner, G. F., Melamed, B. G., & Panush, R. S. (1994). Optimism and coping as determinants of psychosocial adjust- ment to rheumatoid arthritis. Journal of Clinical Psychology in
Medical Settings, 1, 115–134. Bromberger, J. T., & Matthews, K. A. (1996). A longitudinal
study of the effects of pessimism, trait anxiety, and life stress on depressive symptoms in middle-aged women. Psychology and
Aging, 11, 207–213. Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989).
Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267–283.
Cummins, R. A., & Nistico, H. (2002). Maintaining life satisfaction: The role of positive cognitive bias. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 3, 37–69. deRidder, D., Scheier, K., & Bensing, J. (2000). The relative
benefits of being optimistic: Optimism as a coping resource in
multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease. British Journal of
Health Psychology, 5, 141–155. de Vellis, R. F., McEvoy, de vellis, B., Sauter, S. V. H.,
Harring, K., & Cohen, J. L. (1986). Predictors of pain and functioning in arthritis. Health Education Research, 1, 61–67.
Evers, A. M. W., Kraaimaat, F. W., Geenen, R., & Bijlsma, J. W. J. (1998). Psychosocial predictors of functional change in recently diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis patients. Behavior Research and Therapy, 36, 179–193.
Ferreira, V. M., & Sherman, A. M. (2006). Control beliefs and social relations: Their relationship to well-being outcomes in older adults with Osteoarthritis. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 62, 255–274.
Finch, J. F., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Predicting depression from temperament, personality, and patterns of social relations. Journal of Personality, 69, 27–52.
Fournier, M., de Ridder, D. T. D., & Bensing, J. (2002). Optimism and adaptation to chronic disease: The role of optimism in relation to self-care options of type 1 diabetes mellitus, rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis. British
Journal of Health Psychology, 7, 409–432. Gil, K. M., Keefe, F. J., Crisson, J. E., & Van Dalfsen, P. J.
(1987). Social support and pain behavior. Pain, 29, 209–217. Harju, B. L., & Bolen, L. M. (1998). The effects of optimism
on coping and perceived quality of life of college students. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 185–200.
Isaacowitz, D. M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Cognitive style predictors of affect change in older adults. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 54, 233–253.
Keefe, F. J., & Bonk, V. (1999). Psychosocial assessment of pain in patients having rheumatic diseases. Rheumatic Diseases Clinics
of North America, 25, 81–103. Keefe, F. J., Smith, S. J., Buffington, A. L. H., Gibson, J.,
Studts, J. L., & Caldwell, D. S. (2002). Recent advances and future directions in the biopsychosocial assessment and treatment of arthritis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 70, 640–655. Klinger, L., Spaulding, S. J., Polatajko, H. J., MacKinnon, J. R.,
& Miller, L. (1999). Chronic pain in the elderly: Occupational adaptation as a means of coping with osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee. Clinical Journal of Pain, 15, 275–283.
Labourde, J. M., & Powers, M. J. (1985). Life satisfaction, health control orientation, and illness-related factors in persons with Osteoarthritis. Research in Nursing and Health, 8, 183–190.
Lai, J. C. L. (1994). Differential predictive power of the positively versus the negatively worded items of the Life Orientation Test. Psychological Reports, 75, 1507–1515.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Long, B. C., & Sangster, J. L. (1993). Dispositional optimism/ pessimism and coping strategies: Predictors of psychosocial adjustment of rheumatoid and osteoarthritis patients. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1069–1091.
Marshall, G. N., Wortman, C. B., Kusulas, J. W., Hervig, L. K., & Vickers, R. R. (1992). Distinguishing optimism from pessimism: Relations to fundamental dimensions of mood and personality. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 62, 1067–1074.
Neugarten, B. L., Havinghurst, R. J., & Tobin, S. S. (1961). The measurement of life satisfaction. Journal of Gerontology, 16, 134–143.
Penninx, B. W. J. H., van Tillburg, T., Boeke, A. J. P., Deeg, D. J. H., Kriegsman, D. M. W., & van Eijk, J. Th. M. (1998). Effects of social support and personal coping resources on depressive symptoms: Different for various chronic diseases? Health Psychology, 17, 551–558.
Peterson, C., & Bossio, L. M. (1991). Health and Optimism. New York: Free Press.
Preacher, K. J., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2003). Calculation for the
Sobel Test: An interactive calculation tool for mediation tests.
Optimism, pain, social support in well-being 97
Retrieved Sept. 24, 2005, from http://www.unc.edu/�preacher/ sobel/sobel.htm
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 3, 385–401. Reinhardt, J. P., & Blieszner, R. (2000). Predictors of perceived
support quality in visually impaired elders. The Journal of
Applied Gerontology, 19, 345–362. Reker, G. T., & Wong, P. T. P. (1985). Personal optimism,
physical and mental health: The triumph of successful aging. In J. E. Birren & J. Livingston (Eds.), Cognition, stress and aging
(pp. 134–173). New York: Prentice Hall. Roberts, B. L., Matecjyck, M., & Anthony, M. (1996). The
effects of social support on the relationship of functional limitations and pain to depression. Arthritis Care and Research, 9, 67–73.
Russell, D. W., & Cutrona, C. E. (1991). Social support, stress, and depressive symptoms among the elderly: Test of a process model. Psychology and Aging, 6, 190–201.
Sack, K. (1995). Osteoarthritis: A continuing challenge. Western
Journal of Medicine, 163, 579–586. Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1987). Dispositional optimism
and physical well-being: The influence of generalized outcome expectancies on health. Journal of Personality, 55, 169–210.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and physical well-being: Theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive Theory Research, 16, 201–228.
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A re-evaluation of the Life
Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063–1078.
Schulz, R., Tompkins, C. A., & Rau, M. T. (1988). A longitudinal study of the psychosocial impact of stroke on primary support person. Psychology & Aging, 3, 131–141.
Schumacker, H. R. (1988). Primer on the rheumatic diseases
(9th ed.). Atlanta, GA: Arthritis Foundation. Sherbourne, C. D., & Stewart, A. L. (1991). The MOS social
support survey. Social Science and Medicine, 32, 705–714. Sherman, A. (2003). Social relations and depressive symptoms in
older adults with osteoarthritis. Social Science and Medicine, 56, 247–257.
Symister, P., & Friend, R. (2003). The influence of social support and problematic support on optimism and depression in chronic illness: A prospective study evaluating self-esteem as a mediator. Health Psychology, 22, 123–129.
Walen, H. R., & Lachman, M. E. (2000). Social support and strain from partner, family, and friends: Costs and benefits for men and women in adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 17, 5–30. Wallace, K. A., Bisconti, T. L., & Bergeman, C. S. (2001). The
mediational effect of hardiness on social support and optimal outcomes in later life. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 267–279.
Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–481.
Zautra, A. J., Hamilton, N., & Yocum, D. (2000). Patterns of positive social engagement among women with rheumatoid arthritis. The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 20, 21s–40s.
98 V. M. Ferreira & A. M. Sherman
contentserver__4_.pdf
The Relationships among Hope, Pain, Psychological Distress, and Spiritual Well-Being in Oncology Outpatients
Blake Rawdin, MD, MPH,1 Carrie Evans, MA,2 and Michael W. Rabow, MD3
Abstract
Objective: Limited research in Taiwan and Europe suggest that hope is inversely correlated with certain di- mensions of the pain experience. However, the relationship between hope and pain among oncology out- patients in the United States has not been evaluated. The aims of this study were to investigate the relationship between hope and cancer pain, after accounting for key psychological, demographic, and clinical characteristics. Design: We enrolled a convenience sample of 78 patients who were receiving concurrent oncologic and symptom-focused care in a comprehensive cancer center. Patient demographic and clinical information was obtained from patient report and medical record review. Patients completed the Herth Hope Index, the Brief Pain Inventory, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Steinhauser Spiritual Concern Probe. Results: Levels of hope were not associated with age, gender, or the presence of metastatic disease. Herth Hope Index scores were negatively correlated with average pain intensity (p = 0.02), worst pain intensity (p < 0.01), pain interference with function (p < 0.05), anxiety (p < 0.01), and depression (p < 0.01), and were positively cor- related with spiritual well-being scores (p < 0.01). However, after controlling for depression and spiritual well- being with regression analysis, the relationship between pain intensity and hope was no longer significant. Conclusions: While an association exists between the patients’ experience of pain and levels of hope in this study, adjustment for depression and spiritual well being eliminates the relationship initially observed. Although the causal relationships have yet to be determined, in our study hope had a stronger connection to psycho-spiritual factors, than to pain experiences or severity.
Introduction
Maintaining hope in the face of serious illness has long been a goal of patients, families, and clinicians. How-
ever, relatively little is known about the factors that sustain hope.1,2 Even so, hope is a key clinical and perhaps thera- peutic variable, affecting cancer patients’ adjustment and coping skills, overall well-being, immune function, and quality of life.3–10 Conversely, lack of hope and hopelessness is associated with physical illness, depression, and wish to hasten death.11,12 Therefore, developing greater understand- ing of the demographic and clinical factors that might be as- sociated with or influence a patient’s degree of hope could lead to strategies to identify patients at higher risk for hope- lessness or factors that could be targeted by interventions to improve hope and coping with cancer.
Defining and operationalizing hope is a complex endeavor as the term has many different interpretations, meanings, and usages. Qualitative investigations of hope within nursing lit-
erature have helped describe and define the concept in terms of its sources, attributes, and goals. According to the conceptual model developed by Dufault and Martocchio, hope is a ‘‘multidimensional dynamic life force characterized by a confident yet uncertain expectation of achieving a future good which, to the hoping person, is realistically possible and personally significant.’’ Furthermore, hope is described as a ‘‘complex of many thoughts, feelings, and actions that change with time.’’ Based on extensive research, Dufault and Mar- tocchio conceptualized hope as composed of two spheres, ‘‘generalized hope’’ and ‘‘particularized hope,’’ each consist- ing of six shared dimensions: cognitive, temporal, affective, behavioral, affiliative, and contextual.13
As described in reviews by Butt14 and by Chi,15 a number of studies have investigated the role of hope in different popu- lations of cancer patients using qualitative and/or quantita- tive methods. Various instruments have been used to measure hope, most common of which is the Hearth Hope Scale and its more concise counterpart, the Herth Hope Index (HHI). Of the
1Department of Psychiatry, 2School of Nursing, 3Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Accepted September 21, 2012.
JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE Volume 16, Number 2, 2013 ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2012.0223
167
studies that have quantitatively assessed the relationship be- tween hope and cancer pain, findings have varied.16–21 Some research has evidenced direct negative correlations between pain severity and hope.16,18,22 Other studies, however, show no significant direct correlations between hope scores and pain intensity or duration.17,20 For example, a cross-sectional study of hospitalized cancer patients in Norway found HHI scores correlated negatively with several of the interference items on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), but not with pain severity per se.20 A study investigating the association be- tween pain and hope levels in hospitalized Taiwanese cancer patients concluded that HHI scores did not differ between patients with and without cancer pain. However, among those patients with pain, hope levels correlated with patients’ beliefs about their pain symptoms rather than the pain itself (i.e., pain duration, intensity, and relief), suggesting that cognitive and emotional processing may mediate the rela- tionship between pain and hope.17
To our knowledge, none of the studies focused on hope and pain levels to date have included metrics of both psycholog- ical and spiritual well-being. According to Chochinov and others, spirituality can play a significant role in maintaining hope, and it has been recognized by the Institute of Medicine as an important aspect of supportive care at end of life.22–25
Research has also provided empirical support for the hy- pothesis that spiritual well-being might help to bolster psy- chological functioning and adjustment to illness.15,26–28
Because the prior literature has delivered inconsistent re- sults and primarily focused on inpatients, the goal of this study was to examine the relationship between pain and hope among oncologic outpatients, while also controlling for psy- cho-spiritual factors and other potentially significant clinical and demographic variables. It was also important to evaluate the relationship between hope and pain among patients in the US, because prior published studies were set in Europe and Asia.
Methods
Patients and setting
Patients (n = 78) were recruited from the Symptom Man- agement Service (SMS), an oncologic outpatient consultation service at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. Patients were included if they were able to complete surveys in En- glish, able to provide informed consent, were >18 years of age, and had a diagnosis of cancer. Patients with diagnoses of dementia or psychosis were excluded. Institutional Review Board approval was received before data collection began. Medical records were reviewed to confirm cancer diagnoses and to investigate the presence of metastatic disease.
Study instruments
Patients were recruited in the SMS clinic waiting area. After obtaining written informed consent, patients completed a demographic questionnaire, the HHI, BPI, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and Steinhauser Spiritual Concern Probe (SSCP). We selected these measures based on the frequency of their use in the literature, ease of adminis- tration, and construct validity and internal consistency ratings.
The HHI is a 12-item score questionnaire that uses a 4-point Likert scale to assess level of hope.29 The HHI, developed in the oncology setting to operationalize and quantify hope for research and clinical purposes, is based upon Dufault and Martocchio’s conceptual framework of hope. Through psy- chometric validation studies using factor analysis, Herth suc- cessfully identified three subscales—temporality and future, positive readiness and expectancy, and interconnectedness. These three subscales correspond to the cognitive-temporal, affective-behavioral, and affiliative-contextual dimensions elucidated in the Dufault and Martocchio model.13 Total HHI score ranges from 12 to 48 with higher scores corre- sponding to higher levels of hope. Overall scores provide a validated and reliable measure of global hope for cancer pa- tients with an alpha coefficient of 0.97 and a reliability coeffi- cient of 0.91.29
The BPI is a valid and reliable scale for assessing both pain intensity and pain interference with daily activities, using an 11-item questionnaire.30 The first part consists of four ques- tions that addresses pain severity (where zero refers to ‘‘no pain’’ and 10 to pain as ‘‘bad as you can imagine’’), whereas the second part asks about pain interference with seven as- pects of function (where zero refers to ‘‘does not interfere’’ and 10 to ‘‘completely interferes’’). The questionnaire in our study was based on pain experienced over the past week, as in the long version of the BPI.
The HADS is a tool designed for physically ill patients to measure anxiety and depression. It avoids reliance on the physical symptoms of psychiatric disease that result from the physical illness itself. This 14-item scale has been widely validated for use with cancer patients.31
The SSCP uses a 5-point Likert scale to evaluate a patient’s sense of spiritual well-being by asking to what degree the patient feels ‘‘at peace.’’ Higher scores signify greater spiritual well-being. It has been validated as a screen for spiritual distress, associated with both religious and meaning-making elements of spirituality.32
Statistical analysis
Data analyses were conducted using SPSS for Mac Release 20.0.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL). Descriptive statistics were generated to assess the sample in terms of demographics and clinical characteristics. Pearson’s product moment correla- tions between levels of hope and cancer pain intensity, anxi- ety, depression, spiritual well-being, and demographic variables were determined. Based on the patient sample size, the study achieved power to detect a moderate correlation (r = 0.25–0.30) at 80% power.33 All tests were two-tailed with an alpha = 0.05.
A multivariate linear regression model was constructed to evaluate the effects of potential confounders that might sys- tematically bias the association found between pain intensity and HHI scores in the univariate analysis. Each of the vari- ables of interest had skewness values less than twice their standard errors, consistent with normal distributions. Hence, we proceeded with parametric analyses. The dependent var- iable in the model was HHI score. The predictors were se- lected by including demographic and clinical variables deemed important a priori (i.e., age, gender, education, mar- ital status, religion, and the presence of metastatic disease), then clinical predictor variables most highly correlated in the
168 RAWDIN ET AL.
univariate correlational analyses (HADS scores, SSCP score, worst pain in the last week, and pain interference with mood and function). Multicollinearity was assessed for these vari- ables with the use of correlation matrices and variance infla- tion factors, as well as the possibility of interaction between pain variables included in the model and depression scores. The final model for the sake of parsimony retained only those factors found to be statistically significant predictors with a p value of < 0.05. An overall goodness of fit of the regression model was calculated.
Results
Patient enrollment
From a convenience sample of SMS patients, 95 patients were approached to participate and 78 (82%) agreed to par- ticipate, provided written informed consent, and completed the questionnaires. Eleven patients (12%) were not enrolled in
the study because they either did not meet the inclusion cri- teria (n = 4) or declined to participate (n = 7). In addition, six surveys (6%) were not included in the sample because the questionnaire was inadequately completed, whether due to inadvertent omission of key survey elements (n = 2), patients’ time constraints (n = 2), or the patients’ feeling ‘‘too ill’’ to continue (n = 2). Of the seven patients (7%) who declined to participate, four did so out of concerns about privacy and/or reluctance to participate in research more generally. The other three cited feeling ‘‘too ill’’ or ‘‘too stressed-out.’’
Demographic characteristics
The sample consisted of 64% women and 36% men with a mean age of 57.6 years (standard deviation [SD] = 13.0) (Table 1). Nearly 60% of the sample patients were between the ages of 40 and 64; 32% were ‡ 65 years of age and 9% were < 40. Representative of the SMS patient population, 69.2% of patients self-identified as white, 10.3% African American, and 7.7% Asian. The sample patients were highly educated with 83% having completed college or graduate school. Over half (52.6%) of the sample patients were mar- ried or partnered. In terms of religious affiliation, 37.2% identified as Christian, 14.1% as Jewish, 11.5% as Buddhist, 7.7% as other (usually denoted as ‘‘spiritual’’ by patients), and 29.5% as ‘‘none.’’
Clinical characteristics
The three most common cancer diagnoses were breast (28.2%), gynecologic (16.7%), and prostate (15.4%), which is reflective of the proportions within the SMS at large. Two- thirds of the patients (66.7%) had metastatic disease.
The majority (87.2%) of the sample patients had pain due to the cancer or its treatment. The mean pain score among those with pain over the past week was 3.4 (SD = 2.5) (Table 2). The mean level of pain at the time of the survey and at its worst was 2.8 (SD = 2.7) and 4.7 (SD = 3.4), respectively. The mean total HHI score was 38.2 (SD = 5.09). The mean level of spiri- tual well-being was 3.3 (SD = 1.01).
Patients had a mean score of 14.3 on the HADS (SD = 6.3) with 6.6 on the depression subscale (SD = 3.5) and 7.7 on the anxiety subscale (SD = 3.8). Nearly 50% of patients had scores in the normal range on the HADS anxiety subscale, 28% had borderline scores, and 23% had abnormal scores (Table 3). On the HADS depression subscale, 56% of patients had levels in the normal range, 31% of patients scored in the borderline range, and 12% in the abnormal range.
Associations between levels of hope and demographics, clinical characteristics, symptoms, and spiritual well-being scores
Among the demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, eth- nicity, marital status, religion, and education level), only ed- ucation level showed a significant univariate correlation with HHI scores (Table 3). Higher education level was associated with higher HHI scores (r = 0.26, p = 0.02). HHI was not as- sociated with the presence of metastatic disease.
Among pain variables, total HHI scores were negatively correlated with ratings of worst pain over the last week (r = - 0.28, p = 0.01), average pain over the last week (r = - 0.27, p = 0.01), and with all BPI pain interference items except level
Table 1. Descriptive Data for the Sample
Characteristic n %
Gender Women 50 64.10% Men 28 35.90%
Education Middle school 1 1.28% High school 12 15.38% College 39 50.00% Graduate degree 26 33.33%
Marital Status Single 37 47.44% Married/partnered 41 52.56%
Religion Buddhist 9 11.54% Christian 29 37.18% Jewish 11 14.10% Hindu 0 0% Muslim 0 0% None 23 29.49% Other 6 7.69%
Primary Cancer Brain 3 3.85% Breast 22 28.21% Gastrointestinal 3 3.85% Gynecologic 13 16.67% Head/Neck 8 10.26% Hematologic 2 2.56% Lung 5 6.41% Other 5 6.41% Prostate 12 15.38% Urological 5 6.41%
Age age < 40 7 8.97% age 40-64 46 58.97% age 65 + 25 32.05%
Metastatic Disease No 26 33.33% Yes 52 66.67%
Ever Had Pain Related to Present Illness? No 10 12.82% Yes 68 87.18%
HOPE, PAIN, DISTRESS, AND SPIRITUAL WELL-BEING IN ONCOLOGY OUTPATIENTS 169
of interference with relationships: work (r = - 0.23, p = 0.04), sleep (r = - 0.25, p = 0.03), enjoyment (r = - 0.25, p = 0.02), ability to walk (r = - 0.28, p = 0.01), mood (r = - 0.33, p = 0.004), and general function (r = - 0.28, p = 0.01).
Depression and anxiety each were negatively correlated and spiritual well-being positively correlated with total HHI scores with correlations of - 0.56, - 0.48, and 0.52, respec- tively, each with p values of < 0.001.
The multivariate linear regression models constructed to predict HHI score (Table 4) indicate that spiritual well-being scores and depression scores were statistically significant predictors of hope. In the final model (Table 4B) SSCP score had a b coefficient of 1.55 ( p < 0.01), and HADS depression score had a b coefficient of - 0.63 ( p < 0.01). The overall ad- justed R2 for the model was 0.38, p < 0.001. Pain intensity, BPI
functional interference scores, gender, education, marital status, religious affiliation, metastatic disease, and HADS anxiety scores though initially included in the model were ultimately not statistically significant, and hence not retained in the final regression model. Of note, there were no signifi- cant multiplicative interactions found between pain severity scores and HADS depression scores.
Discussion
This study is unique in that it is one of the few to examine the relationship between hope and pain among cancer out- patients in the United States, and to our knowledge, the only one of these to also consider spirituality. We also utilized multivariate linear regression to assess confounding by vari- ous demographic and clinical factors. We found that symp- toms of depression and spiritual well-being independently predicted levels of hope, eclipsing the univariate correlation between pain severity and hope initially observed.
The pain and levels of hope found in this study are similar to those found in prior literature, which suggests some degree of generalizability. The mean hope level found in this study’s patient population was in the upper range but comparable to those found in other studies with HHI scores ranging between 32.5 and 39.17–20,34–36 The average pain score in the study population was also well within the range found in other
Table 2. Scores for Pain, Hope, Depression,
Anxiety, and Spiritual Well-Being
N Mean SD Min Max
BPI Average Pain Over
the Last Week 78 3.38 2.45 0 9
Current Level of Pain 78 2.79 2.68 0 9 Worst Pain in Last Week 78 4.67 3.35 0 10
HHI 78 38.22 5.09 28 48
SSCP 77 3.32 1.01 1 5
HADS (Total Score) 77 14.28 6.33 2 31 HADS - Depression Subscale* 77 7.66 3.84 0 15 HADS - Anxiety Subscale* 77 6.62 3.5 1 16
*HADS subscale scores between 0 and 7 is ‘‘normal,’’ 8–10 is ‘‘borderline abnormal,’’ and 11–21 is ‘‘abnormal.’’
Table 3. Univariate Correlations with HHI
r p-value* n
Demographics Married 0.14 0.24 78 Higher Educational Level 0.26 0.02 78 Male Gender 0.06 0.60 78 Age 0.09 0.42 78
Clinical Characteristics Metastatic Cancer 0.10 0.38 78 Presence of pain due to cancer - 0.01 0.91 78 Worst pain over last 1 week - 0.28 0.01 78 Average pain over last 1 week - 0.27 0.01 78 Pain right now - 0.2 0.08 78 Pain Interference With Function
Work - 0.23 0.04 78 Relationships - 0.20 0.08 78 Sleep - 0.25 0.03 78 Enjoyment - 0.25 0.02 78 Ability to Walk - 0.28 0.01 78 Mood - 0.33 < 0.01 77 General Function - 0.28 0.01 78
HADS (Total Score) - 0.62 <0.01 78 Depression subscale - 0.56 <0.01 77 Anxiety subscale - 0.48 <0.01 77
SSCP 0.52 <0.01 77
*Bold indicates p < 0.05.
Table 4A. Initial Multivariate Linear Regression
Model for HHI Score
Regression variables ß (SE) p-value
Age - 0.05 (0.04) 0.26
Gender (0 = female; 1 = male) - 1.29 (1.04) 0.22
Marital status (0 = single; 1 = married)
1.68 (1.00) 0.10
Metastatic cancer (0 = no; 1 = yes) 1.02 (1.03) 0.33
Any religious affiliation (0 = no; 1 = yes)
- 0.08 (1.10) 0.95
Education (0-less than college; 1 = at least college degree)
2.48 (1.43) 0.09
Pain (worst in last week) - 0.09 (0.23) 0.69
SSCP 1.46 (0.62) 0.02
HADS- Depression Score - 0.55 (0.16) <0.01
HADS- Anxiety Score - 0.23 (0.19) 0.24
Pain interference w/ general function
- 0.01 (0.26) 0.97
Pain interference w/ mood 0.16 (0.27) 0.57
R = 0.70, R2 = 0.49; adj R2 = 0.40. F(12,62) = 5.03; p < 0.001.
Table 4B. Final Multivariate Linear Regression
Model for HHI Score
ß (SE) p-value
SSCP 1.55 (0.53) <0.01 HADS- Depression Score - 0.63 (0.15) <0.01
R = 0.63, R2 = 0.39; adj R2 = 0.38. F(2,73) = 23.72; p < 0.001.
170 RAWDIN ET AL.
related studies.17,21,34,35 Our results expand on the existing research in this field by incorporating additional psycho- spiritual factors into the assessment of the relationship be- tween pain and hope. These findings clarify the suggestion in recent literature that hope is related most closely to psycho- social elements of the pain experience, rather than pain intensity.20,21
Among its limitations, our study was cross-sectional. To further explore the causal links between hope, pain, and psycho- spiritual factors, a longitudinal study would be ideal. Additionally, this study was limited by the recruitment pool available within the study site, and the demographics of our population under-represented certain minority groups. This study did not control for certain cancer-related symptoms ex- perienced by patients, such as nausea, dry mouth, insomnia, anorexia, weight loss, and fatigue, which are other potential confounders of the relationship between pain and hope. Also, we did not control for patients’ beliefs regarding their prognoses, although we did record diagnoses and were able to control for the presence of metastases. A final limitation of this study is that we minimized the time burden on patients by using a single-item probe of spiritual well-being. To further explore the complex dimensions of spiritual beliefs would require more extensive quantitative measures than the SSCP or qualitative methods.
The lack of congruency between the univariate correlations and multivariate modeling in this study highlights the im- portance of measuring and accounting for factors in multiple domains simultaneously. Based on our findings, we deduce that depressive symptoms and spiritual well-being mediate patients’ experiences of pain, influencing their beliefs about, attitudes toward, and interpretations of pain. As the experi- ence of pain is a subjective phenomenon, the affective and cognitive filtering of pain likely matters more than measure- able nociceptive and neuropathic intensity in relationship to levels of hope.37,38
This study buttresses the notion forwarded by other re- searchers that patients may maintain a sense of hope even while cancer pain and other symptoms progress, as a function of cognitive-affective and psycho-spiritual resources and re- siliency.39 On a practical note, this study suggests that when confronted with a patient who seems to have ‘‘lost hope,’’ the physician should look beyond pain measures and explore psychological adjustment and spiritual concerns. Further- more, interventions to sustain or promote hope among cancer patients with pain should carefully consider the role of mental and spiritual health and well-being.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the School of Medicine and the Department of Psychiatry at University of California, San Francisco, as well as National Institutes of Health (NIH) training grant R25060482. The authors would like to express their deep appreciation to Professor Christine Miaskowsi for reviewing and editing a draft of this manuscript, and to Jodi Ross, who assisted with data collection. We also thank the participants and staff of the UCSF Helen Diller Family Com- prehensive Cancer Center.
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
References
1. Nowotny ML: Every tomorrow, a vision of hope. J Psycho- soc Oncol 1991;9:117–127.
2. Fanos JH, Gelinas DF, Foster RS, Postone N, Miller RG: Hope in palliative care: From narcissism to self-transcendence in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Palliat Med 2008;11: 470–475.
3. Axelsson B, Sjoden PO: Quality of life of cancer patients and their spouses in palliative home care. Palliative Med 1998;12:29–39.
4. Brandt BT: The relationship between hopelessness and se- lected variables in women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum 1987;14:35–39.
5. Farran CJ, Herth KA, Popovich JM: Hope and Hopelessness: Critical Clinical Constructs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub- lications, 1995.
6. Taylor EJ: Factors associated with meaning in life among people with recurrent cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum 1993;20:1399–1405; discussion 1406–1407.
7. Udelman DL, Udelman HD: A preliminary report on anti- depressant therapy and its effects on hope and immunity. Soc Sci Med 1985;20:1069–1072.
8. Herth KA: The relationship between level of hope and level of coping response and other variables in patients with cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum 1989;16:67–72.
9. Bishara E, Loew F, Forest MI, Fabre J, Rapin CH: Is there a relationship between psychological well-being and patient- carers consensus? A clinical pilot study. J Palliat Care 1997;13:14–22.
10. Post-White J: How hope affects healing. Creative Nurs 2003;9:10–11.
11. Breitbart W, Rosenfeld B, Pessin H, et al.: Depression, hopelessness, and desire for hastened death in terminally ill patients with cancer. JAMA 2000;284:2907–2911.
12. Gil S, Gilbar O: O. Hopelessness among cancer patients. J Psychosoc Oncol 2001;19:21–33.
13. Dufault K, Martocchio BC: Symposium on compassionate care and the dying experience. Hope: Its spheres and di- mensions. Nurs Clin North Am 1985;20:379–391.
14. Butt CM: Hope in adults with cancer: State of the science. Oncol Nurs Forum 2011;38:E341–E350.
15. Chi GC: The role of hope in patients with cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum 2007;34:415–424.
16. Berendes D, Keefe FJ, Somers TJ, Kothadia SM, Porter LS, Cheavens JS: Hope in the context of lung cancer: Relation- ships of hope to symptoms and psychological distress. J Pain Symptom Manage 2010;40:174–182.
17. Chen ML: Pain and hope in patients with cancer: A role for cognition. Cancer Nurs 2003;26:61–67.
18. Hsu TH, Lu MS, Tsou TS, Lin CC: The relationship of pain, uncertainty, and hope in Taiwanese lung cancer pa- tients. J Pain Symptom Manage 2003;26:835–842.
19. Lin CC, Lai YL, Ward SE: Effect of cancer pain on perfor- mance status, mood states, and level of hope among Tai- wanese cancer patients. J Pain Symptom Manage 2003;25: 29–37.
20. Utne I, Miaskowski C, Bjordal K, Paul SM, Jakobsen G, Rustoen T: The relationship between hope and pain in a sample of hospitalized oncology patients. Palliat Support Care 2008;6:327–334.
21. Utne I, Miaskowski C, Bjordal K, Paul SM, Rustoen T: The relationships between mood disturbances and pain, hope, and quality of life in hospitalized cancer patients with pain
HOPE, PAIN, DISTRESS, AND SPIRITUAL WELL-BEING IN ONCOLOGY OUTPATIENTS 171
on regularly scheduled opioid analgesic. J Palliat Med 2010;13:311–318.
22. Chochinov HM, Cann BJ: Interventions to enhance the spiritual aspects of dying. J Palliat Med 2005;8(Suppl 1): S103–S115.
23. Buckley J, Herth K: Fostering hope in terminally ill patients. Nurs Stand 2004;19:33–41.
24. Field MJ, Cassel CK: Approaching death: Improving care at the end of life. Health Prog 2011;92:25.
25. McClement SE, Chochinov HM: Hope in advanced cancer patients. Eur J Cancer (Oxford, England: 1990) 2008;44:1169– 1174.
26. Fehring RJ, Miller JF, Shaw C: Spiritual well-being, religiosity, hope, depression, and other mood states in elderly people coping with cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum 1997;24:663–671.
27. Nelson CJ, Rosenfeld B, Breitbart W, Galietta M: Spirituality, religion, and depression in the terminally ill. Psychosomatics 2002;43:213–220.
28. Mystakidou K, Tsilika E, Parpa E, et al.: Exploring the re- lationships between depression, hopelessness, cognitive status, pain, and spirituality in patients with advanced cancer. Arch Psychiatr Nurs 2007;21:150–161.
29. Herth K: Abbreviated instrument to measure hope: Devel- opment and psychometric evaluation. J Advanced Nurs 1992;17:1251–1259.
30. Cleeland CS, Ryan KM: Pain assessment: Global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med, Singapore 1994;23: 129–138.
31. Snaith RP, Zigmond AS: The hospital anxiety and depres- sion scale. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986;292:344.
32. Steinhauser KE, Voils CI, Clipp EC, Bosworth HB, Christakis NA, Tulsky JA: ‘‘Are you at peace?’’: One item to probe spiritual concerns at the end of life. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:101–105.
33. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A: G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 2007;39:175–191.
34. Ebright PR, Lyon B: Understanding hope and factors that enhance hope in women with breast cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum 2002;29:561–568.
35. Lai YH, Chang JT, Keefe FJ, et al.: Symptom distress, cata- strophic thinking, and hope in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients. Cancer Nurs 2003;26:485–493.
36. Sanatani M, Schreier G, Stitt L: Level and direction of hope in cancer patients: An exploratory longitudinal study. Sup- port Care Cancer 2008;16:493–499.
37. Boogaard S, Heymans MW, Patijn J, et al.: Predictors for persistent neuropathic pain—a Delphi survey. Pain Physi- cian 2011;14:559–568.
38. Basinski A, Stefaniak T, Stadnyk M, Sheikh A, Vingerhoets AJ: Influence of religiosity on the quality of life and on pain intensity in chronic pancreatitis patients after neurolytic ce- liac plexus block: Case-controlled study. J Relig Health 2011 Feb 1 [Epub ahead of print].
39. Block SD: Perspectives on care at the close of life. Psycho- logical considerations, growth, and transcendence at the end of life: The art of the possible. JAMA 2001;285:2898–2905.
Address correspondence to: Blake Rawdin, MD, MPH
University of California, San Francisco Langley Porter Hospital and Clinics
401 Parnassus Avenue Box 0984-RTP
San Francisco, CA 94143
E-mail: [email protected]
172 RAWDIN ET AL.
Copyright of Journal of Palliative Medicine is the property of Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
read_and_evaluate_the_following_research_articles1.docx
Read and evaluate the following research articles:
· Rawdin, B., Evans, C., & Rabow, M. W. (2013). The relationships among hope, pain, psychological distress, and spiritual well-being in oncology outpatients. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 16(2), 167-172. doi:10.1089/jpm.2012.0223 Link to Article
· Ferreira, V. M., & Sherman, A. M. (2007). The relationship of optimism, pain and social support to well-being in older adults with osteoarthritis. Aging & Mental Health, 11(1), 89-98. doi:10.1080/13607860600736166 Link to Article
Apply the concepts explored in the articles above by writing a 2-3 page paper in APA format using proper spelling and grammar. Your paper should address the following:
1. Examine the concept of psychological well-being as it relates to the experience of pain and stress.
2. Explore how optimism, hope, distress, and social support play a role in how people experience pain and stress. Be sure to discuss how these elements of psychological well-being contribute to overall physical and mental health.
3. Be sure to reference specific concepts from the articles. Use in-text citations and provide APA formatted References as appropriate.
|
|
Please refer to Rasmussen's APA Guide located on the Resourcestab for information regarding APA format as well as APA referencing and citation procedures. |
Submit your completed assignment to the drop box below. Please check the Course Calendar for specific due dates.
Save your assignment as a Microsoft Word document. (Mac users, please remember to append the ".docx" extension to the filename.) The name of the file should be your first initial and last name, followed by an underscore and the name of the assignment, and an underscore and the date. An example is shown below:
Jstudent_exampleproblem_101504