» Articles » PMID: 40082284

Dyadic Effects of Locus of Control and Coping Style on Posttraumatic Growth in Patients with Gynecological Cancer and Their Spouses: an Actor‒partner Interdependence Modeling Approach

Overview
Specialties Critical Care
Oncology
Date 2025 Mar 14
PMID 40082284
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to examine the dyadic effects of locus of control and coping style on the posttraumatic growth(PTG) of gynecological cancer patients and their spouses via the actor-partner interdependence model (APIM).

Methods: This was a prospective cross-sectional survey study. A convenience sampling method was used to select participants. The Demographic and Cancer-related Information Questionnaire, Internality, Powerful others and Chance Scale, Simplified Coping Style Questionnaire and Chinese-Posttraumatic Growth Inventory Scale were utilized for the survey. An actor‒partner interdependence model was constructed to examine the impact of locus of control and coping style on PTG for both patients and their spouses.

Results: The date of 400 individuals(200 couples) were analyzed. The PTG scores for patients and their husbands were 61.66 ± 12.82 and 57.77 ± 12.03, respectively. Both partners' PTG was influenced by internal locus of control and positive coping style (P < 0.01). Each partner's internal locus of control and positive coping style could predict their own PTG, with a significant actor effect (P < 0.05). The spouse's internal locus of control could predict the patient's PTG, whereas the patient's positive coping style could predict the spouse's PTG, indicating significant partner effects (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: The PTG of gynecological cancer patients and their spouses is moderate. The locus of control and coping style of both partners have an interactive effect on their own PTG. To promote PTG for both partners, healthcare professionals should intervene simultaneously with patients and their spouses, incorporating positive psychological intervention methods.

References
1.
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel R, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A . Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021; 71(3):209-249. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21660. View

2.
Tanyi Z, Mirnics Z, Ferenczi A, Smohai M, Meszaros V, Kovacs D . Cancer as a Source of Posttraumatic Growth: A Brief Review. Psychiatr Danub. 2020; 32(Suppl 4):401-411. View

3.
Mostarac I, Brajkovic L . Life After Facing Cancer: Posttraumatic Growth, Meaning in Life and Life Satisfaction. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2021; 29(1):92-102. DOI: 10.1007/s10880-021-09786-0. View

4.
Boyle C, Stanton A, Ganz P, Bower J . Posttraumatic growth in breast cancer survivors: does age matter?. Psychooncology. 2016; 26(6):800-807. PMC: 4990492. DOI: 10.1002/pon.4091. View

5.
Ma X, Wan X, Chen C . The correlation between posttraumatic growth and social support in people with breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Front Psychol. 2023; 13:1060150. PMC: 9799164. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1060150. View