Comparison of a questionnaire commonly used for measuring coping with a daily-basis prospective coping measure.
BACKGROUND
Much research have investigated the relation between stress and health, with focus on the role of coping as a moderator. The use of the concept of coping is in need of more stringency since it is often used in a more or less careless manner. A contributory cause of the confusion within the research field is the often-negligent interpretation of results from the Mental Adjustment to Cancer (MAC) Scale (i.e., results are discussed in terms of coping strategies instead of mental adjustment). Furthermore, checklists are often used in research but seldom specify the stressor that patients are attempting to cope with.


METHODS
Consecutive patients newly diagnosed with gastrointestinal (GI) cancer were included in this study. Of 151 eligible patients, 95 (63%) participated. As soon as their physical condition so permitted, patients were asked to assess their coping by way of two methods: an instrument commonly used for measuring coping (MAC Scale) and a daily-basis prospective coping measure [Daily Coping Assessment (DCA)]. The study investigated the relations between these two methods, which are used to evaluate different ways of coping with cancer, and related these to specified stressful events and psychologic distress outcomes [Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)].


RESULTS
Among patients with GI cancers, a comparison of the DCA with the MAC Scale renders important differences regarding the use of coping strategies. Furthermore, coping as measured by the DCA is more clearly separated from both stressors such as psychologic aspects and psychologic distress outcomes as measured by the HADS.


CONCLUSIONS
A comparison between the two measures renders differences regarding the use of coping strategies among patients with GI cancers. The daily-basis prospective coping measure seems to be better separated from both stressful events and psychologic distress outcomes. The DCA offers a promising alternative to the use of coping checklists. The difference between the measures is in accordance with the original intention that the MAC Scale be used to measure mental adjustment rather than coping (i.e., the results do not support the use of the MAC Scale as a coping measure).
Wasteson
Elisabet
E
Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Section of Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. elisabet.wasteson@pubcare.uu.se
Glimelius
Bengt
B
Sjödén
Per-Olow
PO
Nordin
Karin
K
D000223:Adaptation, Psychological; D000339:Affect; D001294:Attitude to Health; D006801:Humans; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000523:psychology*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012917:Social Adjustment; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires