Perceived positive and negative consequences after surviving cancer and their relation to quality of life

Surviving childhood cancer has multiple implications on both physical and psychological domains of the individual. However, its study and possible effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes of adolescent survivors has been understudied. The objective of this study was twofold; to assess positive and negative cancer-related consequences (psychosocial and physical) in a sample of adolescent cancer survivors and to explore their relationship with HRQoL outcomes. Forty-one participants answered two questions about positive and negative consequences in the aftermath of cancer and filled in the KIDSCREEN-52 self-reported version. Data were analysed using mixed methods approach. 87.8% of the sample identified positive consequences and 63.4% negative consequences in survivorship. Four positive categories and five negative categories with regard to cancer-related consequences were found. Changed perspectives in life narratives seem to be the positive consequence more related to HRQoL (physical well-being, mood & emotions, autonomy, social support & peers), followed by useful life experience (physical well-being, autonomy, social support & peers). Psychological impact was the most referred negative consequence with a significant detrimental effect on social support and peers HRQoL dimension. Even if the majority of survivors reported benefit finding in the aftermath of cancer, concomitant positive and negative consequences have been found. However, findings only reveal a significant relationship between positive narratives and HRQoL, and negative consequences do not seem to have a significant influence on overall HRQoL in survivorship.

Looking behaviour and preference for artworks: The role of emotional valence and location

The position of an item influences its evaluation, with research consistently finding that items occupying central locations are preferred and have a higher subjective value. The current study investigated whether this centre-stage effect (CSE) is a result of bottom-up gaze allocation to the central item, and whether it is affected by item valence. Participants (n=50) were presented with three images of artistic paintings in a row and asked to choose the image they preferred. Eye movements were recorded for a subset of participants (n=22). On each trial the three artworks were either similar but different, or were identical and with positive valence, or were identical and with negative valence. The results showed a centre-stage effect, with artworks in the centre of the row preferred, but only when they were identical and of positive valence. Significantly greater gaze allocation to the central and left artwork was not mirrored by equivalent increases in preference choices. Regression analyses showed that when the artworks were positive and identical the participants’ last fixation predicted preference for the central art-work, whereas the fixation duration predicted preference if the images were different. Overall the result showed that item valence, rather than level of gaze allocation, influences the CSE, which is incompatible with the bottom-up gaze explanation. We propose that the centre stage heuristic, which specifies that the best items are in the middle, is able to explain these findings and the centre-stage effect.