Examines quality of life outcomes in women undergoing chemotherapy through spirituality, suggesting meaning-focused interventions enhance well-being.
Objectives This study examined longitudinal associations between spirituality and quality of life (QoL) in women newly diagnosed with breast cancer and undergoing chemotherapy at a large tertiary cancer center. Methods Women ( N = 114) completed measures of spirituality (3 subscales of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Spiritual Well-Being Scale: Meaning, Peace, and Faith) and health-related QoL (36-Item Short Form Health Survey) at study entry and 3- and 15-months later. Bias-corrected bootstrap tests were used to examine whether baseline Faith was indirectly associated with mental and physical QoL 15 months later via Meaning and Peace at 3 months. Results Baseline Faith was positively associated with Meaning ( β = .31, p = .001) and Peace ( β = .38, p < .001) at 3 months. Both Meaning [ n = 94, effect = .07 (95% CI: .002, .17)] and Peace [ n = 93, effect = .13 (95% CI: .02, .28)] mediated the association between Faith and mental QoL at 15 months. When baseline Meaning was controlled, the indirect effect of baseline Faith on mental QoL remained significant, [ n = 94, effect = .07 (95% CI: .001, .18)], and increases in Meaning over the first 3 months became an even stronger predictor of later mental QoL ( β = .36, p = .004), suggesting that change in meaning during active treatment is an especially important predictor of mental QoL. Significance of results Overall, findings demonstrate that Faith is indirectly associated with long-term QoL through early increases in Meaning and Peace. Because 90% of participants were within 6 weeks of diagnosis, the study provided a unique perspective on spirituality during the early treatment period. Clinically, results highlight the importance of early assessment of spiritual well-being and suggest that meaning-focused interventions may enhance long-term QoL for women undergoing chemotherapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Conti et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: