Abstract
Background:
A novel written exposure-based coping intervention (EASE) for distressed adults with advanced cancer focused on their cancer-related worst-case scenario and showed promise for reducing cancer-related trauma symptoms and fear of cancer progression (FoP). This study examines potential mechanisms of change, specifically linguistic features of participants’ writing.
Methods:
Adults (N = 28) with advanced solid tumor (n = 23) or high-risk blood cancer (n = 5) reporting elevated trauma or FoP participated. Writing was collected during five weekly intervention sessions (three exposure, two coping) and analyzed using linguistic software (LIWC-22). Outcomes were assessed pre-intervention and one-week post-intervention.
Results:
More positive (trauma: ηp2 = 0.64, p < 0.001; FoP: ηp2 = 0.34, p = 0.011) and negative (FoP: ηp2 = 0.38, p = 0.007) emotion words during exposure writing sessions predicted worse outcomes, while more death-related words predicted reduced FoP (ηp2 = 0.22, p = 0.023). Positive tone in coping writing sessions predicted reduced FoP (ηp2 = 0.31, p = 0.009), while negative tone predicted worse FoP (ηp2 = 0.22, p = 0.026).
Conclusions:
Findings offer preliminary support for several proposed mechanisms of this novel written exposure intervention.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.