Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
197,768 studies31 sourcesUpdated 12 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Journal of Clinical Medicine

Personality and Psychological Distress: Statistical Mediation Through Constructive and Destructive Coping in Oncological Patients

  • Robert Jan Łuczyk1
  • Marta Łuczyk2
  • Dorota Weber3
  • Kamil Sikora4
  • Anna Charuta1
  • Anna Pacian5
5 affiliations
  1. 1Institute of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Siedlce, 08-110 Siedlce, Poland
  2. 2Long-Term Care Nursing Department, Chair of Preventive Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, Medical University of Lublin, Ul. Chodźki 7, 20-093 Lublin, Poland
  3. 3Faculty of Health Sciences, Lublin University of Technology, WSEI in Lublin, Projektowa 4, 20-209 Lublin, Poland
  4. 4Department of Internal Medicine and Internal Nursing, Chair of Preventive Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, Medical University of Lublin, Ul. Chodźki 7, 20-093 Lublin, Poland
  5. 5Department of Health Education, Faculty of Health Sciences, Medical University of Lublin, 20-400 Lublin, Poland
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

Background: Personality traits are established correlates of psychological adjustment to cancer, but their relationships with coping styles, anxiety, and depression require further examination. Constructive coping (fighting spirit, positive reappraisal) and destructive coping (helplessness–hopelessness, anxious preoccupation) are hypothesised intermediates in these relationships. This cross-sectional study examined direct and indirect statistical associations in a structural equation model linking the five NEO-FFI personality traits, both coping styles, and anxiety and depression symptoms in patients with cancer. Methods: This multicentre cross-sectional study was conducted between January 2024 to May 2025 in the Department of Clinical Oncology and Radiotherapy and the Department of Oncological Surgery of the Siedlce Oncology Centre, University Hospital No. 4 in Lublin, and University Hospital No. 1 in Lublin, Poland. Statistical analysis was performed on 185 participants. Personality was assessed with the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI), coping style with the Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer (Mini-MAC) scale, and anxiety and depression with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). A saturated structural equation model (four multiple regression equations) was estimated, with standardised path coefficients, non-parametric bootstrap (5000 resamples), and 95% bootstrap confidence intervals for direct and indirect effects. All analyses were conducted in R (version 4.2.2) via RStudio (version 2022.12.0), α = 0.05. Personality traits, coping styles, anxiety, and depression were measured concurrently; the specified mediation pathways therefore represent statistical associations rather than evidence of temporal or causal mechanisms. Results: The model explained 52% of the variance in depression, 52% in anxiety, 10% in constructive coping, and 9% in destructive coping. Agreeableness was the strongest positive predictor of constructive coping (β = 0.334, p = 0.001) and a negative predictor of destructive coping (β = −0.199, p = 0.019). Neuroticism and conscientiousness positively predicted destructive coping (β = 0.213, p = 0.011; β = 0.218, p = 0.028). Constructive coping was negatively associated with both depression (β = −0.247, p < 0.001) and anxiety (β = −0.124, p = 0.037), while destructive coping was positively associated with both (β = 0.218, p = 0.002; β = 0.383, p < 0.001). Nominal 95% bootstrap confidence intervals excluded zero for specific indirect associations involving agreeableness and both distress outcomes through both coping styles, and for neuroticism and conscientiousness through destructive coping. Conclusions: Constructive and destructive coping were involved in model-specified indirect associations between personality and psychological distress in cancer patients. Agreeableness was associated with lower distress through both coping styles, while neuroticism and conscientiousness showed positive indirect associations through destructive coping. Concurrent measurement, possible construct overlap, unadjusted demographic and clinical factors, and multiple comparisons limit interpretation. These exploratory findings may inform hypotheses for longitudinal studies; they do not establish causal mediation or the effectiveness of coping-focused interventions.

Related

  1. An Individual Meta‐Analysis of Psychological Treatments for Mood and Personality Disorders Using the Severity Diagnostic System of ICD‐11
    Min Yang, Peter Tyrer, Mike Crawford +1
    Personality and mental health : Duplicate, marked for deletionPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textPsychiatry & mental healthEurope PMC
  2. Potential psychological processes linking mindfulness to borderline personality disorder symptoms: a systematic review and thematic synthesis
    Aamer Aldbyani, Afnan Alhimaidi, Chunhong Shen +2
    Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion DysregulationPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textPsychiatry & mental healthDOAJ
  3. Oncological outcomes of direct versus delayed surgery after neoadjuvant short-course radiotherapy for rectal cancer: national cohort study
    BJS openPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textSurgery & anaesthesiaEurope PMC
  4. Long-term oncological outcomes after nipple-sparing mastectomy and implant-based immediate breast reconstruction in a population-based cohort of breast cancer patients
    BJS openPeer-reviewedCC BY-NCFull textSurgery & anaesthesiaEurope PMC
  5. Pancreatic Cancer-Associated Pain Management Beyond Opioids: Integrating Oncological Treatment, Palliative Care, and Interventional Pain Medicine
    Ferenc Zelenai, Eszter Bakos, Villő Süller-Torma +3
    CancersPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textOncologyEurope PMC

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{luczyk2026personality,
  title = {{Personality and Psychological Distress: Statistical Mediation Through Constructive and Destructive Coping in Oncological Patients}},
  author = {Robert Jan Łuczyk and Marta Łuczyk and Dorota Weber and Kamil Sikora and Anna Charuta and Anna Pacian},
  journal = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.3390/jcm15208161},
  url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/20/8161},
  note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Personality and Psychological Distress: Statistical Mediation Through Constructive and Destructive Coping in Oncological Patients
AU  - Robert Jan Łuczyk
AU  - Marta Łuczyk
AU  - Dorota Weber
AU  - Kamil Sikora
AU  - Anna Charuta
AU  - Anna Pacian
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/01
JO  - Journal of Clinical Medicine
DO  - 10.3390/jcm15208161
UR  - https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/20/8161
AB  - Background: Personality traits are established correlates of psychological adjustment to cancer, but their relationships with coping styles, anxiety, and depression require further examination. Constructive coping (fighting spirit, positive reappraisal) and destructive coping (helplessness–hopelessness, anxious preoccupation) are hypothesised intermediates in these relationships. This cross-sectional study examined direct and indirect statistical associations in a structural equation model linking the five NEO-FFI personality traits, both coping styles, and anxiety and depression symptoms in patients with cancer. Methods: This multicentre cross-sectional study was conducted between January 2024 to May 2025 in the Department of Clinical Oncology and Radiotherapy and the Department of Oncological Surgery of the Siedlce Oncology Centre, University Hospital No. 4 in Lublin, and University Hospital No. 1 in Lublin, Poland. Statistical analysis was performed on 185 participants. Personality was assessed with the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI), coping style with the Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer (Mini-MAC) scale, and anxiety and depression with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). A saturated structural equation model (four multiple regression equations) was estimated, with standardised path coefficients, non-parametric bootstrap (5000 resamples), and 95% bootstrap confidence intervals for direct and indirect effects. All analyses were conducted in R (version 4.2.2) via RStudio (version 2022.12.0), α = 0.05. Personality traits, coping styles, anxiety, and depression were measured concurrently; the specified mediation pathways therefore represent statistical associations rather than evidence of temporal or causal mechanisms. Results: The model explained 52% of the variance in depression, 52% in anxiety, 10% in constructive coping, and 9% in destructive coping. Agreeableness was the strongest positive predictor of constructive coping (β = 0.334, p = 0.001) and a negative predictor of destructive coping (β = −0.199, p = 0.019). Neuroticism and conscientiousness positively predicted destructive coping (β = 0.213, p = 0.011; β = 0.218, p = 0.028). Constructive coping was negatively associated with both depression (β = −0.247, p < 0.001) and anxiety (β = −0.124, p = 0.037), while destructive coping was positively associated with both (β = 0.218, p = 0.002; β = 0.383, p < 0.001). Nominal 95% bootstrap confidence intervals excluded zero for specific indirect associations involving agreeableness and both distress outcomes through both coping styles, and for neuroticism and conscientiousness through destructive coping. Conclusions: Constructive and destructive coping were involved in model-specified indirect associations between personality and psychological distress in cancer patients. Agreeableness was associated with lower distress through both coping styles, while neuroticism and conscientiousness showed positive indirect associations through destructive coping. Concurrent measurement, possible construct overlap, unadjusted demographic and clinical factors, and multiple comparisons limit interpretation. These exploratory findings may inform hypotheses for longitudinal studies; they do not establish causal mediation or the effectiveness of coping-focused interventions.
SN  - 2077-0383
ER  -