Psychological distress among survivors of esophageal cancer: the role of illness cognitions and coping

Leventhal's common sense model has provided a useful framework for explaining psychological distress in several chronic illnesses. The model indicates that a person's perception of their illness and their coping strategies are the key determinants of their experience of psychological distress. The present research examines whether illness perceptions and coping strategies are related to levels of psychological distress among survivors of esophageal cancer. Everyone registered with the Oesophageal Patients' Association in the UK was mailed a questionnaire booklet, which included the Illness Perception Questionnaire-Revised, the Cancer Coping Questionnaire, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Complete responses were received from 484 people. Regression models indicated that the variables measured could explain 51% of the variance in anxiety and 42% of the variance in depression. Perceptions of esophageal cancer explained the majority of this variance. Positive focus coping strategies were also found to be important in explaining psychological distress. The results of this study are consistent with previous research demonstrating that illness perceptions are stronger correlates of adaptive outcomes than coping strategies. The findings suggest that cognition-based interventions could potentially be most effective in minimizing emotional distress among survivors of esophageal cancer.

The factor structure of the revised Illness Perceptions Questionnaire in a population of oesophageal cancer survivors

Objectives
To determine whether the proposed 7-factor structure of the Illness Perception Questionnaire-Revised (Timeline Acute/Chronic, Timeline Cyclical, Consequences, Personal Control, Treatment Control, Illness Coherence and Emotional Representations) is appropriate among a population of oesophageal cancer survivors.
Methods
Everyone registered with the Oesophageal Patients’ Association in the UK (n=2185) was mailed a questionnaire booklet which included the Illness Perception Questionnaire-Revised. Responses from 587 oesophageal cancer survivors (27%) were subjected to a confirmatory factor analysis.
Results
The proposed 7 factor structure provided a reasonable fit of the data. Modification indices suggested that a significantly better fit could be provided if one of the items on the Timeline Acute/Chronic factor loaded on the Treatment Control factor and an error covariance was added between 2 other items on the Timeline Acute/Chronic factor.
Conclusions
The model fit for the 7 factor structure proposed by Moss-Morris et al. (2002) was found to be adequate in our study. However, the structure of the timeline acute/chronic factor needs to be considered, particularly when the IPQ-R is to be used among older people with a potentially life-threatening illness or those receiving palliative care.

Building Clouds Drifting Walls:Year One Design Studio: A Critical Appraisal

This is a Booklet about a first year design studio in a school of architecture. It describes and reflects on changes that happened in the course over a three year period starting September 2000. The Studio is made up of students from mainstream architecture, and dual courses with landscape and engineering. The booklet is for those who are thinking of studying architecture. It might also be for those already learning and teaching architecture who want to see how other design studios work.

Out of the Shadows: A one day investigation of the politics of architecture explored through the lens of post-conflict, Belfast

This booklet covers the itinerary and some of the findings of a day-long visit to Belfast on the 7th November 2014 by Peter Oborn; Vice President International of the Royal Institute of British Architects. His visit was in response to a motion submitted to the RIBA council (19.05.2014) calling for the suspension of the Israeli Association of United Architects from the International Union of Architects. Despite members of council speaking against the motion it was carried; 23 members voting for, 16 against, and 10 abstentions. Subsequently the RIBA came under considerable pressure to consider its position in such critical contexts. This visit to Belfast was part of a wider fact-finding mission and evidence taking. At its heart was the question: 'Is it appropriate for the institute (RIBA) to engage with communities facing civil conflict and/or natural disaster and, if so, how it can do so most effectively.' The visit was facilitated by Ruth Morrow, Professor of Architecture, School of Planning, Architecture & Civil Engineering, Queen's University Belfast, and Martin Hare, Royal Society of Ulster Architects (RSUA) president.