Mediating role of fear of progression between sensory processing sensitivity and stigma in lung cancer patients: a cross-sectional study†

Item	FoP			CLCSS			HSPS
Item	M	SD	t	M	SD	t	M	SD	t
Nationality			2.065*			–1.159			0.35
Han (N = 209, 86.4%)	29.26	8.86		52.31	13.16		125.22	20.59
Ethnic minority (N = 33, 13.6%)	25.88	7.89		55.3	17.4		123.88	19.63
Gender			–4.44***			1.024			–2.786**
Male (N = 119, 49.2%)	26.34	7.79		53.64	12.76		121.37	20.12
Female (N = 123, 50.8%)	31.17	9.08		51.82	14.75		128.59	20.16
Smoking history			–3.388**			3.803***			–1.31
Yes (N = 97, 40.1%)	26.51	8.44		56.73	14.04		122.94	20.57
No (N = 145, 59.9%)	30.33	8.72		50.03	13.02		126.44	20.28
Place of residence			0.329			4.297***			–0.316
Rural (N = 111, 45.9%)	29	9.11		56.78	14.82		124.59	21.05
City (N = 131, 54.1%)	28.63	8.55		49.27	11.9		125.42	19.95
Month income			–0.285			3.699***			1.401
3000–3999 and below (N = 168, 39.4%)	28.69	9.05		54.84	13.98		126.26	20.65
4000–4999 and above (N = 74, 30.6%)	29.04	8.25		47.89	12.2		122.27	19.76
Education level			–0.016			2.289*			–1.242
Middle school and below (N = 138, 57%)	28.79	8.87		54.46	13.99		123.62	21.43
High school and above (N = 104, 43%)	28.81	8.73		50.39	13.28		126.91	18.95

1 Abbreviations: CLCSS,= Cataldo Lung Cancer Stigma Scale; FoP,= Fear of Progression Questionnaire-Short Form; HSPS,= Highly Sensitive Person Scale; SD, standard deviation.

1 * P < 0.05.

1 ** P < 0.01.

1 *** P < 0.001.

Table 2.

Correlations, means, SDs, and α coefficients of scale variables.

Scale	M	SD	α	1	2	3
1. FoP	28.80	8.80	0.87	-
2. CLCSS	52.71	13.81	0.94	0.217**	-
3. HSP	125.04	20.43	0.88	0.199**	0.187**	-

1 Note: CLCSS,= Cataldo Lung Cancer Stigma Scale; FoP, Fear of Progression Questionnaire-Short Form; HSPS,= Highly Sensitive Person Scale; SDs, standard deviations;

1 ** P < 0.01.

Mediating role of FoP between SPS and Stigma.
*Note*: FoP, Fear of Progression Questionnaire-Short Form; SPS, sensory processing sensitivity; ^*P < 0.05, ^**P < 0.01, ^***P < 0.001; the results were obtained by controlling for demographic variables.

Table 3.

Analysis procedure of mediating analysis.

Step	Independent variable	Dependent variable	R	R2	F	β	t
1	SPS	Stigma	0.418	0.175	7.089***	0.120	2.882**
2	SPS	FoP	0.350	0.122	4.664***	0.068	2.490*
3	SPS	Stigma	0.472	0.222	8.327***	0.095	2.318*
	FoP					0.365	3.768***

1 Note: CLCSS, Cataldo Lung Cancer Stigma Scale; FoP, Fear of Progression Questionnaire-Short Form; HSPS, Highly Sensitive Person Scale; The results were obtained by controlling for demographic variables; SPS, sensory processing sensitivity;

1 * P < 0.05,

1 ** P < 0.01,

1 *** P < 0.001.

Table 4.

Total, direct, and indirect effects of SPS on FoP

Effects	Effect size	Effect ratio	95% CI
Total effect	0.120		[0.038, 0.202]
Direct effect	0.095	79%	[0.014, 0.176]
Indirect effect	0.025	21%	[0.004, 0.054]

1 Note: CI, confidence intervals; FoP, fear of progression; SPS, sensory processing sensitivity.

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fon-2024-0041 | Journal eISSN: 2544-8994 | Journal ISSN: 2097-5368

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 373 - 378

Submitted on: Jan 12, 2024

Accepted on: Mar 25, 2024

Published on: Dec 16, 2024

Published by: Shanxi Medical Periodical Press

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

fear of progression,

lung cancer,

mediating role,

sensory processing sensitivity,

stigma

Related subjects:

Medicine,

Assistive professions, nursing

© 2024 Nan Shen, Jiao Yang, Qian-Rong Yang, Ruo-Jia Wu, Jing Yang, Kai-Wen Dong, Yan-Qiu Zhao, Xiu-Mei Yang, published by Shanxi Medical Periodical Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 11 (2024): Issue 4 (December 2024)

Mediating role of fear of progression between sensory processing sensitivity and stigma in lung cancer patients: a cross-sectional study†

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Table 1.

Table 2.

Figure 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Paradigm

My account