1041 Sleep Quality Mediates The Relationship Between Fear Of Cancer Recurrence And Psychological Distress In Young Adults With Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Fear of cancer recurrence is common in young adults with cancer and also related to poorer psychological outcomes. Sleep may be disrupted by anxious thoughts about cancer, causing long-term psychological distress. Thus, the current study tests sleep as a putative mediator of the association between fear of cancer recurrence and overall psychological distress in young adult cancer survivors. Methods In a national cross-sectional survey of Canadians, 436 young adults diagnosed with cancer between the ages of 15-39 (current age range 20-39, m=32.39, SD=4.70; 88% female) completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory—Short Form, and the Kessler 10 Distress Inventory. Mediation was estimated using PROCESS. Age, sex, and on/off treatment status were entered into models as covariates. Results In the current sample, average fear of cancer recurrence was above the clinical cut-point (m=22.92, SD=6.84), psychological distress was high (m=25.18, SD=7.81), and sleep quality was poor (m=9.11, SD=3.95). Females reported significantly higher fear of cancer recurrence than males [F(1, 435)=15.49, p <.001]. Patients on treatment reported significantly higher fear of cancer recurrence [F(1,435)=11.43, p=.001], poorer sleep quality [F(1,435)=6.48, p=.011], and greater psychological distress [F(1,435)=4.73, p <.001] than patients off treatment. Using a bootstrapping model with covariates, higher fear of cancer recurrence was related to poorer sleep quality and, in turn, higher psychological distress as indicated by the indirect effect’s confidence interval not containing 0 (indirect effect=.13; 95%CI=0.081, 0.189). Conclusion Sleep quality may play an important role in connecting the common experience of fear of cancer recurrence to psychological distress in young adult cancer survivors. Future longitudinal research is needed to examine this possible mediator of young adult cancer patients’ psychological distress outcomes over time. Support This research was supported by a grant from the Newfoundland and Labrador Support for People and Patient-Oriented Research and Trials (NL-SUPPORT) Unit. Sheila Garland is supported by a Scotiabank New Investigator Award from the Beatrice Hunter Cancer Research Institute (BHCRI).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".