Background: Psychological resilience is important for women coping with the physical and emotional challenges of chemotherapy for gynecological cancer. However, the associations of psychological resources with resilience during treatment remain insufficiently understood. Objective: This study aimed to examine the associations of hope, self-efficacy, and adaptive coping strategies with psychological resilience among women receiving chemotherapy for gynecological cancer. Methods: A descriptive correlational design was used. The study sample consisted of 144 women receiving outpatient chemotherapy in Turkey. Data were collected using standardized self-report measures assessing psychological resilience, hope, self-efficacy, and adaptive coping strategies. Descriptive statistics, correlation analyses, and hierarchical linear regression analyses were conducted to examine the associations between psychological resilience and hope, self-efficacy, and adaptive coping strategies. Results: The mean psychological resilience score indicated a moderate level of resilience. Psychological resilience was positively associated with hope, self-efficacy, and adaptive coping strategies. In the final regression model, self-efficacy showed the strongest independent association with psychological resilience (β = 0.524, P = .001), followed by hope (β = 0.257, P = .001) and adaptive coping (β = 0.146, P = .015). Together, these variables explained 56.2% of the variance in psychological resilience. Conclusions: Hope, self-efficacy, and adaptive coping were positively associated with psychological resilience among women undergoing chemotherapy for gynecological cancer. These findings may inform nurse-led psychosocial support approaches that address self-efficacy, hope, and adaptive coping strategies as part of resilience-related care. Longitudinal and intervention studies are needed to examine whether changes in these psychological resources are followed by changes in resilience and other psychosocial outcomes during cancer treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
PURTUL et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: