Mindfulness and quality of life among breast cancer survivors: the mediating role of self-kindness and alexithymia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer is the most prevalent type of cancer for women. The American Cancer Society estimated that approximately 192,000 women were diagnosed with new cases of breast cancer in 2009. Fortunately, the current five-year survival rate for early stage breast cancer is 98% (ACS, 2009). This means many women diagnosed with breast cancer will become survivors. Although transitioning from being a cancer patient to a cancer survivor may be a welcome milestone, it also comes with unpleasant side effects that can negatively impact quality of life (Allen, Savadatti, & Levy, 2009). The primary purpose of this study was to examine the relationship among mindfulness, quality of life, alexithymia, and self-kindness in breast cancer survivors. A total of 133 Stages 0 to III breast cancer survivors participated in the study. Mindfulness, quality of life, self-kindness, and alexithymia were measured using the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast, the Self Compassion Scale, and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale. A causal path analysis indicated that mindfulness was a significant predictor of quality of life, but self-kindness and alexithymia were not significant mediators. Pearson Product Moment coefficients revealed significant relationships between the four study variables. An ANOVA found that stage of cancer significantly impacted quality of life for Stage 0 and Stage III breast cancer survivors. An ANOVA indicated no significant results for the type of surgery or time since completion of medical treatment on quality of life. The results suggest that mindfulness, self-kindness, and alexithymia are important factors to consider for quality of life in Stage 0 to III breast cancer survivors. Clinical implications exist for counselors. Further research investigating possible moderating effects of self-kindness and alexithymia is needed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".