Cross-sectional study reveals connections between post-traumatic growth, rumination, and social support in gastric cancer patients, highlighting key intervention targets.
Abstract Propose The exploration of pathways promoting positive psychological changes in gastric cancer survivors can significantly enhance post-traumatic growth (PTG) and improve overall physical and mental health. This study aimed to (1) explore the relationship between post-traumatic growth, event-related rumination, and perceived social support in postoperative gastric cancer patients to aid in their recovery from postoperative trauma; as well as (2) identify bridge nodes in the network of PTG with rumination and perceived social support. Methods This cross-sectional study included 398 gastric cancer survivors. Data were collected using the Chinese Post-traumatic Growth Inventory, Event-related Rumination Inventory, and Perceived Social Support Scale. Network analysis identified central and bridge nodes determined using the qgraph and networktools packages. The network stability was assessed by R package bootnet. Results Post-traumatic growth was used as the dependent variable. PTG1 (Appreciation of life)-E2 (Deliberate rumination), PTG2 (Personal strength)-E2 (Deliberate rumination), and PTG2 (Personal strength)-P1 (Family support) showed notable positive correlations. PTG4 (Relating to others) and E1 (Intrusive rumination) are negative correlated. PTG2 (Personal strength) had the highest centrality and was identified as a key factor. PTG2 (Personal strength) and E2 (Deliberate rumination) served as the key bridge nodes connecting the different communities. Conclusion Personal strength may have a significant impact on post-traumatic growth of gastric cancer patients. Notably, personal strength and deliberate rumination function as bridges in distinct directions. Targeting these factors could enhance intervention effectiveness, facilitate positive psychological transformation in patients, and achieve post-traumatic growth.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: