Longitudinal study examines mental health trajectories and associated risk factors in lung cancer survivors, suggesting targeted interventions.
Aims To examine individual variations in mental health trajectories and identify associated risk factors among patients with lung cancer. Design A longitudinal study. Methods Participants recruited from outpatient clinics at five time points: 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after a diagnosis. Data collected included demographic and disease‐related characteristics, symptom distress, and mental health. Hierarchical Linear Modelling (HLM) was used to analyse changes in mental health trajectories and identify significant predictors. The study is reported using the STROBE checklist. Results In total, 130 patients with lung cancer were included in the study. Mental health demonstrated a significant improvement over time, with notable individual variations in patterns of improvement. Male patients and those experiencing high levels of symptom distress exhibited slower improvements in mental health over time. Conclusions Patients with lung cancer showed overall improvement in mental health within 1 year following a diagnosis; however, the pattern of improvement varied among individuals. Male patients and those with high levels of symptom distress constituted a vulnerable group, exhibiting poorer mental health outcomes over time. Implications for the Profession and Patient Care Early assessments of and individualised interventions for symptoms distress to improve mental health should be considered essential components of care to enhance the overall well‐being of patients with lung cancer. Impact These findings highlight the need for healthcare professionals implementing person‐centred interventions aimed at improving mental health that might be beneficial for patients with lung cancer. Reporting Method Study methods and results reported in adherence to the STROBE checklist. Patient or Public Contribution Patients contributed their consent, time, and data to the study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Apriadi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: