Posttraumatic growth and benefit-finding in lung cancer survivors: The benefit of rural residence?

Abstract

Rural cancer survivors report more distress than non-rural survivors. Little research has examined whether rural residence might also be linked to positive psychological outcomes. Rural ( n = 117) and non-rural ( n = 76) lung cancer survivors completed measures of posttraumatic growth, benefit-finding, and distress. Rural survivors reported more posttraumatic growth than urban survivors. There were no differences in benefit-finding. Mediation analyses indicated distress mediated the relationship between rural residence and posttraumatic growth. Findings suggest rural residence might be beneficial with regard to potential for posttraumatic growth among cancer survivors. Consistent with trauma theory, distress mediated the relationship between rural residence and posttraumatic growth.

Quality of Life and Impact of Cancer: Differences in Rural and Nonrural Non‐Hodgkin's Lymphoma Survivors

“…Further, rural lung cancer survivors reported significantly higher levels of posttraumatic growth compared to urban survivors. 19 Our findings in rural NHL survivors could be explained by the fact that many rural communities have strong community support networks and connections to faith-based groups. 38,40 Rural survivors in our sample may have benefited from these connections, thus improving their overall quality of life during and after cancer treatment.…”

“…18 However, rural cancer survivors also may benefit from strong social networks and increased posttraumatic growth (or the positive change that occurs as a result of the struggle with highly challenging life crises such as cance), both of which may improve coping skills and QOL. [19][20][21] The unique relationship between rural residence and QOL in NHL long-term cancer survivors is a gap in the current literature. Given that NHL survivors often report high levels of PTSD following cancer treatment that negatively affect QOL, 22 and the documented access to care issues that rural cancer survivors often face, this study can inform targeted outreach, assessment and treatment initiatives for this group of cancer survivors that are often underserved.…”

“…23 Cancer survivors report both positive and negative impacts of cancer on their lives, with variations found in rural and urban populations. 19,23 McNutly et al (2015) 24 reported that urban survivors had greater negative impact scores compared to their rural counterparts. Research also supports an increase in posttraumatic growth among rural cancer survivors compared to urban survivors.…”

“…This suggests that the impact of cancer may be more positive for rural cancer survivors. 19 Measuring the Impact of Cancer on survivors is an important tool for assessing survivor concerns that can impact QOL following cancer. The information gained can be used to develop interventions that improve QOL through addressing the negative impact as well as harnessing the positive impact following cancer.…”

Making meaning of cancer: A qualitative analysis of oral-digestive cancer survivors’ reflections

“…The relationship between stress, distress (like PTSD) and meaning making (both processes and meanings made) is complex and debated (Shakespeare-Finch and Lurie-Beck, 2014). Generally, reports of perceived growth are correlated with more anxiety, less depression, and more positive coping (Andrykowski et al, 2017; Helgeson et al, 2006; Kolokotroni et al, 2014; Stanton et al, 2002). This may be consistent with the theory that the drive to reduce distress underlies meaning-making processes (Janoff-Bulman, 1992; Shakespeare-Finch and Lurie-Beck, 2014; Shand et al, 2015), such that distress and growth can co-occur and PTSD may occur in part when individuals become “stuck” on maladaptive meanings and ruminations (Cafaro et al, 2019).…”