Meaning in life after cancer: Validation of the sources of meaning card method among participants in cancer rehabilitation.
Saved in:
| Title: | Meaning in life after cancer: Validation of the sources of meaning card method among participants in cancer rehabilitation. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Sørensen, Victoria H., Andersen, Aida H., Andersen, Tonny, Rasmussen, Annette, Aagesen, Maria, Schnell, Tatjana, Pedersen, Heidi F., la Cour, Peter, Rottmann, Nina |
| Source: | Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. Dec2024, Vol. 65 Issue 6, p1055-1065. 11p. |
| Subjects: | Health literacy, Research funding, Interviewing, Culture, Uncertainty, Attention, Linguistics, Quality of life, Cognition disorders, Spirituality, Cancer patient psychology, Tumors, Medical needs assessment, Needs assessment, Theory, Cancer patient rehabilitation, Achievement |
| Geographic Terms: | Denmark |
| Abstract: | Cancer survivors may be struggling to re‐create meaning in life. Addressing their personal sources of meaning can support them in this process. The sources of meaning card method (SoMeCaM) aims to map and explore personal sources of meaning in a 1‐h session. It includes 26 cards, each with a statement on a source of meaning. The purpose of this study was to validate the statements on the sources of meaning cards for use among participants in cancer rehabilitation by examining whether participants attribute the same meaning to the statements as intended. The three step test interview method was used to assess response processes to the sources of meaning cards among 12 participants in a 5‐day cancer rehabilitation program in Denmark. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using framework analysis. Nineteen of the 26 statements were interpreted congruently, that is, in line with the underlying theory, by all participants. Issues of incongruency, ambiguity and confusion were observed in participants' interpretations of the statements on religiosity (n = 6), spirituality (n = 10), and reason (n = 6). Minor issues were observed for the statements on practicality, achievement, knowledge, and attentiveness. In most statements, cancer survivors' interpretation aligned with the underlying theory. Problems were apparent regarding the sources of meaning religiosity, spirituality and reason, and a reconsideration of the wording of the statements is recommended. These problems may be due to cultural and linguistic interpretations rather than to being a cancer survivor. Future studies could focus on these issues in other target populations. Despite these minor issues, the SoMeCaM has proven useful in addressing the important topic of meaning in life in the cancer rehabilitation setting. Clinicians should pay attention to nuances in participants' understanding of the cards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Scandinavian Journal of Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Cancer survivors may be struggling to re‐create meaning in life. Addressing their personal sources of meaning can support them in this process. The sources of meaning card method (SoMeCaM) aims to map and explore personal sources of meaning in a 1‐h session. It includes 26 cards, each with a statement on a source of meaning. The purpose of this study was to validate the statements on the sources of meaning cards for use among participants in cancer rehabilitation by examining whether participants attribute the same meaning to the statements as intended. The three step test interview method was used to assess response processes to the sources of meaning cards among 12 participants in a 5‐day cancer rehabilitation program in Denmark. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using framework analysis. Nineteen of the 26 statements were interpreted congruently, that is, in line with the underlying theory, by all participants. Issues of incongruency, ambiguity and confusion were observed in participants' interpretations of the statements on religiosity (n = 6), spirituality (n = 10), and reason (n = 6). Minor issues were observed for the statements on practicality, achievement, knowledge, and attentiveness. In most statements, cancer survivors' interpretation aligned with the underlying theory. Problems were apparent regarding the sources of meaning religiosity, spirituality and reason, and a reconsideration of the wording of the statements is recommended. These problems may be due to cultural and linguistic interpretations rather than to being a cancer survivor. Future studies could focus on these issues in other target populations. Despite these minor issues, the SoMeCaM has proven useful in addressing the important topic of meaning in life in the cancer rehabilitation setting. Clinicians should pay attention to nuances in participants' understanding of the cards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00365564 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/sjop.13048 |
