Anna Charuta

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.

Background/Objectives: A cancer diagnosis and its subsequent treatment constitute one of the most psychologically demanding experiences a patient can face, and decades of psycho-oncology research have documented an elevated burden of depression, anxiety, and related conditions in this population. Reported prevalence figures nonetheless vary enormously between studies—a 2011 meta-analysis by Mitchell and colleagues, for instance, arrived at pooled depression estimates roughly half those reported in some subsequent work—complicating clinical decisions about who should be screened and how intensively. The present narrative review with preliminary quantitative synthesis set out to chart this variability directly: to assemble a cross-section of the international literature on depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), insomnia, and suicidal ideation in oncology patients to quantify how far pooled estimates diverge from one another when treatment setting, tumour type, and assessment instrument are allowed to vary freely, and to lay the empirical groundwork for a subsequent, fully systematic review by the author group. Methods: Consistent with the exploratory aims stated above, eligible primary studies were located through web-based literature searching and citation chaining rather than exhaustive querying of bibliographic databases; the search was therefore not conducted, and is not reported, as a PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review. Cross-sectional or baseline cohort studies reporting original prevalence figures for at least one of the five outcomes above, in patients with a histologically confirmed malignancy, including adult and paediatric/adolescent patients, who were undergoing or had completed treatment, using a named validated instrument, were retained. Where two or more studies addressed the same outcome, a random effects pooled proportion (DerSimonian–Laird estimator, Freeman–Tukey double arcsine variance stabilisation) was computed in Python as an illustrative, not definitive, summary statistic, alongside Cochran’s Q and I². Results: Twelve studies conducted across nine countries were retained, contributing fourteen outcome-level data points. The illustrative pooled prevalence of depression was 45.6% (95% CI: 29.5–62.3%; k = 3; I² = 91.2%) and of anxiety 44.1% (95% CI: 32.7–55.8%; k = 4; I² = 90.5%)—both considerably above the double-digit figures reported in earlier interview-based meta-analyses, reflecting the self-report screening instruments and, in several instances, lower-income treatment settings represented in the present sample. Pooled PTSD prevalence was 17.0% (95% CI: 7.3–29.7%; k = 3; I² = 91.8%) and pooled insomnia prevalence 38.0% (95% CI: 24.5–52.6%; k = 3; I² = 86.7%). A single Chinese multicentre study of 509 women with advanced breast cancer reported suicidal ideation in 22.8% of respondents; this figure is reported descriptively only, is not pooled, and should not be extrapolated to oncology patients generally. Conclusions: Even acknowledging its exploratory character, this synthesis reinforces a conclusion already well established in psycho-oncology: a substantial minority, and on some metrics close to half, of patients receiving cancer treatment report clinically significant psychological symptoms, with figures highest for depression and anxiety in the self-report studies assembled here. The magnitude of between-study heterogeneity observed for every outcome, however, argues strongly against treating any single percentage—ours included—as a stable population estimate; tumour type, treatment phase, country income level, and instrument choice all plausibly move the figure by a considerable margin, and disentangling these influences is the explicit purpose of the fully systematic review the author group is now undertaking; the present figures should be read as hypothesis-generating inputs to that forthcoming systematic review, not as stand-alone prevalence estimates suitable for direct clinical or policy use.

Background: Illness acceptance is a key psychological factor shaping adjustment to chronic disease, and personality traits are among its established correlates. Whether the diagnostic context—oncological versus cardiovascular disease—moderates the relationship between personality and illness acceptance remains insufficiently studied. This study examined associations between the Big Five personality traits (NEO-FFI) and illness acceptance (AIS) in patients with cancer and cardiovascular disease, and tested whether diagnosis moderates these associations. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted between January 2024 and May 2026 at the Oncology Centre of the Lublin Region, University Hospital No. 4, Lublin, and University Hospital No. 1, Lublin. The sample comprised 631 patients: 316 with a cancer diagnosis and 315 with cardiovascular disease. Personality traits were measured with the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) and illness acceptance with the Acceptance of Illness Scale (AIS). An unadjusted moderated multiple regression was used, with personality traits as predictors, diagnosis (0 = cancer, 1 = cardiovascular disease) as the moderator, and illness acceptance as the outcome; age, sex, and illness duration were not included as covariates, and all continuous variables were standardized. Analyses were performed in R (version 4.2.2) via RStudio (version 2022.12.0), with α = 0.05. Results: Patients with cardiovascular disease scored higher on neuroticism and lower on openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness than patients with cancer (all p < 0.05); groups did not differ in extraversion or overall illness acceptance. The unadjusted moderated regression model was significant, F (11, 619) = 9.88, p < 0.001, explaining 14.9% of the variance in illness acceptance (adjusted R² = 0.134). The diagnosis coefficient was positive and statistically significant in the unadjusted model (β = 0.23, p = 0.002), while neuroticism was negatively associated with illness acceptance (β = −0.29, p < 0.001). A significant openness × diagnosis interaction was observed (β = −0.22, p = 0.008); the model-estimated conditional coefficients for openness were β = 0.09 in the cancer group and β = −0.13 in the cardiovascular disease group. Formal inferential tests of the within-group slopes were not performed, and the model was not adjusted for age, sex, or illness duration. Conclusions: In this cross-sectional study, neuroticism was negatively associated with illness acceptance in the unadjusted model, whereas the openness × diagnosis interaction was exploratory. The conditional coefficients pointed in opposite directions across diagnostic groups, but the within-group slopes were not formally tested and the model was not adjusted for age, sex, or illness duration. These findings are hypothesis-generating and require confirmation in adjusted and longitudinal studies before informing diagnosis-specific clinical support.

Background/Objectives: Preoperative nutritional status is a recognised determinant of postoperative outcomes, influencing wound healing, complication rates, and length of hospital stay. This study assessed nutritional risk among patients prepared for surgical treatment using the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002) tool and examined its association with sociodemographic characteristics, gastrointestinal symptoms, comorbidities, and malignancy diagnosis. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 94 patients hospitalized on general/minimally invasive surgery and oncological surgery wards of a military clinical hospital in Lublin, Poland, between January and March 2025, using the NRS 2002 tool alongside a structured sociodemographic and clinical questionnaire. Normality was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Group comparisons used the Mann–Whitney U test for two groups and the Kruskal–Wallis H test for three or more groups, with post hoc pairwise comparisons where indicated; associations with age and treatment duration were assessed using Spearman’s rank correlation; and the association between malignancy diagnosis and nutritional risk category was assessed using the chi-square test with Cramér’s V. Analyses were performed in R 4.2.2/RStudio, with α set at 0.05. Results: Most patients (76.6%, n = 72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 67.1–84.0%) showed no increased nutritional risk on the final NRS 2002 classification, while 23.4% (n = 22; 95% CI: 16.0–32.9%) had an indication for nutritional treatment. Nutritional risk score increased significantly with age (Spearman ρ = 0.633, p < 0.001), educational level (Kruskal–Wallis H(3) = 19.29, p < 0.001), marital status (H(3) = 17.70, p = 0.001), employment status (H(2) = 21.92, p < 0.001), and ward length of stay (H(3) = 36.18, p < 0.001). Nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and appetite loss were each associated with higher scores (all p ≤ 0.002), whereas heartburn was not. Hypertension, atherosclerosis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were associated with elevated scores (p ≤ 0.045). The proportion meeting the nutritional-treatment threshold was numerically higher among patients with malignancy than among those without malignancy (32.6% vs. 15.7%), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (Pearson χ²(1) = 3.70, p = 0.054, Cramér’s V = 0.199). Analyses of admission mode and total illness duration were not statistically significant (p = 0.828 and p = 0.452, respectively). Conclusions: While most patients prepared for surgery had no increased nutritional risk according to NRS 2002, nearly one in four met the tool’s threshold for nutritional treatment. In exploratory unadjusted analyses, higher scores were observed among older, retired, widowed, and less-educated patients and among those reporting selected gastrointestinal symptoms or specific comorbidities. Patients with malignancy more often met the threshold for nutritional treatment, although this difference was not statistically significant in the present sample. These findings support systematic preoperative nutritional screening followed by further assessment of patients who screen positive, consistent with Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) principles.

Background/Objectives: Health self-assessment captures perceived physical and psychological well-being. This study described current and recalled pre-infection health ratings, persistent symptoms, and sociodemographic and clinical correlates among adults reporting previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of 120 adults was conducted at University Clinical Hospital No. 4 in Lublin, Poland, and online between January and April 2026. An author-designed questionnaire assessed sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, current and recalled pre-infection general health, and symptoms following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The 30-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-30) assessed current psychological symptoms. Both general health ratings were obtained in the same survey. Bivariate analyses used non-parametric tests and chi-square tests, with p < 0.05 as the nominal significance threshold. Results: Very good health was reported by 44.2% when recalling pre-infection health and by 28.3% for current health. Current health ratings were associated with age, education, employment, financial situation, and reported disease severity (all p < 0.001). The most commonly reported current complaints were fatigue/weakness (30.8%), cognitive disturbances (‘brain fog’; 17.5%), and dyspnoea (16.7%). Mean normalised GHQ-30 domain scores were 37.1/100 for anxiety and depression, 39.0/100 for general functioning, and 30.5/100 for interpersonal relationships. Poorer financial situation and more COVID-19 hospitalisations showed small positive correlations with poorer GHQ-30 scores (R = 0.19–0.27). Vaccine dose count showed a small correlation with general functioning (R = 0.18; p = 0.045). Conclusions: Current health was rated less favourably than recalled pre-infection health in this sample. Recall bias, selection effects, and unmeasured or uncontrolled confounding prevent attribution of this difference to infection. The exploratory associations do not establish independent risk factors, clinical diagnoses, or population prevalence.

Background/Objectives: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) affects respiratory function, psychological well-being, and quality of life. Personality traits may be associated with adaptation to chronic illness. This study evaluated associations between Five-Factor personality traits, illness acceptance, and selected self-reported psychosocial outcomes in patients with COPD. Methods: A cross-sectional study included 120 hospitalized patients who reported a diagnosis of COPD between January 2025 and March 2026. Personality traits were assessed using the NEO Five-Factor Inventory, and illness acceptance using the Acceptance of Illness Scale. Sociodemographic and clinical data were collected with an original questionnaire. Results: Participants showed mean sten scores within the average range for neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, whereas openness was lower than the average range. The mean illness acceptance score was 24.67 ± 2.62, corresponding to moderate acceptance. Higher neuroticism was associated with poorer self-rated adaptation, more frequent dyspnea-related anxiety, and lower self-rated quality of life; neuroticism also differed across categories of daily-functioning limitation (H = 19.909, p < 0.001). Higher extraversion was associated with better self-rated adaptation, more favorable self-rated treatment outcomes, and higher self-rated quality of life. Openness correlated negatively with illness acceptance (ρ = −0.338, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In this sample, personality traits showed unadjusted associations with illness acceptance and selected self-reported psychosocial outcomes. These hypothesis-generating findings should be interpreted cautiously and require confirmation in studies using objective clinical indicators and multivariable analyses.

Background/Objectives: A cancer diagnosis forces a rapid, often unwelcome reorganization of a patient’s sense of self, routines, and future plans, and patients vary considerably in how far they progress toward accepting that new reality. Personality is a candidate explanation for this variability, and although the Five-Factor Model has been linked to cancer-related distress and coping in several large cohorts, its relationship to illness acceptance specifically, alongside disease duration, treatment self-assessment, and perceived social support, has not been jointly examined in a single, diagnostically broad oncology sample. Methods: We surveyed 114 outpatients with a confirmed malignant tumor diagnosis, combining a study-specific questionnaire with the NEO-Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) and the Acceptance of Illness Scale (AIS). Because several study variables were non-normally distributed and the study-specific measures were ordinal, associations were examined using Spearman’s correlation, the Kruskal–Wallis H test, and the Mann–Whitney U test. Results: Illness acceptance was moderate on average (mean [M] = 26.55, standard deviation [SD] = 7.34); 22 patients (19.30%) were classified as having low acceptance, 76 (66.67%) as average acceptance, and 16 (14.04%) as high acceptance. All five personality domains correlated with acceptance, led by a strong negative association with neuroticism (ρ = −0.632, p < 0.001) and moderate positive associations with extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience (all p < 0.001). Longer disease duration and a more favorable self-rated treatment outcome were both associated with higher acceptance, and patients who felt supported by close relatives scored higher than those who found support difficult to gauge. Conclusions: Personality traits, particularly neuroticism, were associated with illness acceptance. Brief psychosocial assessment may help identify patients reporting greater difficulties in psychological adjustment to cancer.

Background: Stress is regarded as one of the natural and unavoidable elements of human life and, at the same time, one of the key determinants of physical and mental health. Stress is not a new phenomenon; it has accompanied human beings since the beginning of life as a reaction to everyday challenges. This study aimed to assess the prevalence and severity of stress, as well as stress-coping strategies, in a group of patients treated for oncological reasons. Methods: The study included 108 patients hospitalized at the Independent Public Clinical Hospital No. 1 in Lublin, Poland, in the following departments: the 2nd Department of General, Gastroenterological and Gastrointestinal Oncological Surgery; the Department of Oncological Surgery; and the Department of Hemato-Oncology and Bone Marrow Transplantation. Three standardized questionnaires were used: the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10), the Type D Personality Scale (DS-14), and the “How Do I Cope” Inventory (JSR). Statistical analysis was performed with IBM SPSS Statistics, version 25; statistical significance was set at α < 0.05. Results: Patients treated for oncological reasons constitute a group exceptionally exposed to stress, which accompanies them at every stage of the disease, from diagnosis, through treatment, to the terminal phase. In patients whose treatment resulted in remission, stress related to the possibility of recurrence accompanies every follow-up examination and every worrying symptom. Given the range of situations that provoke stress, the overall level of stress in this group can be regarded as high. Stress-coping strategies among oncological patients are shaped by multiple factors, including selected sociodemographic characteristics; taking into account the diversity of these factors, coping strategies varied considerably across the sample. The level of coping strategies was not associated with age or sex but was significantly associated with educational attainment. Conclusions: Oncological patients experience a high and pervasive level of stress that persists throughout diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. Stress-coping strategies are heterogeneous, are not determined by age or sex, but are shaped by education, indicating a need for individualized psychosocial and educational support integrated into routine oncological care.

W ostatnich latach obserwuje się ciągły postęp w badaniach nad jakością życia osób dotkniętych chorobami przewlekłymi, czyli: cukrzycą, nadciśnieniem tętniczym, miażdżycą, reumatoidalnym zapaleniem stawów itp. Masaż to jeden z elementów fizjoterapii, który wpływa na poprawę jakości życia osób starszych przewlekle chorych, redukuje ból, poprawia krążenie oraz elastyczność mięśni i stawów, co wpływa na ich dobrostan. Regularne stosowanie masażu może pozytywnie oddziaływać na samopoczucie psychiczne pacjentów, obniżając stres, poziom lęku i poprawiając sen. Celem pracy było określenie wpływu masażu na poprawę jakości życia osób, u których stwierdzono choroby przewlekłe. Badaniem objęto 120 osób (66 kobiet i 54 mężczyzn) przewlekle chorych (z nadciśnieniem tętniczym, reumatoidalnym zapaleniem stawów, miażdżycą i cukrzycą). Wśród badanych przeprowadzono ankietę, która była dobrowolna i anonimowa. Wykonano następujące rodzaje masażu: segmentarny, tesnegracyjny, centryfugalny, powięziowy, kontralateralny oraz tkanek głębokich.Rezultaty: Stwierdzono, że masaż istotnie wpływa na poprawę dobrostanu osób przewlekle chorych. Badania wykazały, że subiektywne odczucia starszych pacjentów mają wpływ na poprawę jakości ich życia osób. Masaż leczniczy przynosi ogromne korzyści psychologiczne, fizyczne i społeczne, wspierając holistycznie osoby geriatryczne.Wnioski: Masaż jako jeden z elementów fizjoterapii manualnej jest czynnikiem pozytywnie wpływającym na osoby starsze z chorobami przewlekłymi. Masaż poprawia samopoczucie psychiczne, działa przeciwbólowo, dodaje energii życiowej, a także stwarza warunki do tworzenia więzi międzyludzkich.

(1) Background: Sea fish with a high level of omega-3 very long-chain (VLC) PUFAs makes them a valuable component of a healthy diet. One of the most popular fish products is fish fingers, for which the market is still growing. The content of omega-3 VLC PUFAs in fish fingers may differ across price categories, such as premium or budget, despite being manufactured from the same fish species. Furthermore, the labelling of fish fingers typically fails to indicate the quantity of omega-3 VLC PUFAs present. It is unclear whether fish fingers can increase the amount of omega-3 VLC PUFAs in the diet. Hence, this study aimed to examine the content of omega-3 VLC PUFAs in pollock fish fingers from premium and budget price categories manufactured by the same producer and sold in supermarkets. (2) Methods: The premium fish fingers were made with pollock fillet and the budget ones with minced pollock meat. Fat content and fatty acids profile were analysed. (3) Results: The primary fatty acid found in fish fingers was oleic acid, followed by linoleic acid. Saturated fatty acids were less than 7%. This reflected the composition of frying fat, which was rapeseed oil. Fish fingers contained a dietary noticeable amount of omega-3 VLC PUFAs; for premium and budget fish fingers it was 283.01 mg and 123.44 mg per 100 g of product, respectively. (4) Conclusions: Not all fish fingers have the same nutritional value, despite being manufactured by the same producer and from the same fish species. Even though both were made from pollock, premium fish fingers were a better dietary source omega-3 EPA and DHA than a low-cost alternative. Eating three sticks (100 g) of examined pollock fish fingers, either premium or budget, can meet the recommended daily intake level of omega-3 VLC PUFAs at 100% or 50%, respectively.