Coping styles and pain level in lung cancer patients: The mediating role of stress level and the moderating role of place of residence and gender
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Lung cancer is a type of cancer that negatively and strongly affects mental and physical functions. It is characterized by specific symptoms, including emotional ones, i.e. high levels of stress, feelings of insecurity and loss of security. These emotional effects can directly debilitate individuals, thereby increasing the risk of depression and anxiety disorders. The present study examined the variables that determine the psychological functioning of people with lung cancer. Aim of the study: This study examined the relationships between coping styles, stress levels and pain levels in lung cancer patients and whether these relationships were moderated by place of residence. Methods: A sample of 97 lung cancer patients completed questionnaires measuring coping styles (the Coping with Stress Inventory), perceived stress levels (the Perceived Stress Scale) and pain levels (the McGill Brief Pain Questionnaire). Results: Emotion-focused coping style was positively associated with higher levels of stress and pain, while task-focused coping style was negatively associated with it. Stress level fully mediated the association between emotion-focused coping and pain. The associations between emotion-focused coping, stress and pain were stronger in patients living in small towns than in patients from larger cities. Conclusions: An emotion-focused way of coping increases patients’ stress levels, which in turn increases pain perception. This relationship is clear among patients from rural areas and small towns. The task-oriented approach is associated with lower stress. Stress acts as an explanatory mechanism for how different coping strategies affect pain perception. The results underscore the importance of interventions to improve coping skills, especially for rural patients who may have less access to medical resources and support. Shifting from an emotion-focused coping style to a task-focused coping style may help reduce stress and alleviate pain in patients with lung cancer.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".