ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
A network analysis of benefit finding, posttraumatic growth, anxiety, and depression in breast cancer patients.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Breast cancer patients often experience psychological distress, such as anxiety and depression, during diagnosis and treatment; however, positive psychological changes, including benefit finding (BF) and posttraumatic growth (PTG), may also occur. This study aimed to construct a co-occurrence network of BF, PTG, anxiety, and depression and to identify central and bridge dimensions across different psychological communities. Methods: A total of 707 breast cancer patients were recruited from five tertiary hospitals in northern Anhui Province, China, between September 2025 and January 2026. Participants completed the Benefit Finding Scale (BFS), the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Network analysis was conducted to construct the network, identify central and bridge dimensions, and assess network stability. Expected influence (EI) and bridge expected influence (BEI) were calculated to assess centrality and bridge centrality, respectively. Results: A total of 707 breast cancer patients participated in the study. Network analysis revealed that BFS4 ("personal growth", EI = 1.034) was the most central dimension in the co-occurrence network. The strongest edge was observed between HADS1 and HADS2 ("anxiety-depression", edge weight = 0.527), both within the distress community. Key bridge dimensions included BFS4 ("personal growth", BEI = 0.504), PTGI4 ("relating to others", BEI = 0.481), and BFS3 ("worldview", BEI = 0.401). The network showed high stability. Conclusions: "Personal growth" (BFS4) occupied both central and bridge positions in the estimated network. Together with the bridge positions of PTGI4 ("relating to others") and BFS3 ("worldview"), these findings highlight the potential relevance of personal growth-related resources, interpersonal relationships, and worldview when considering psychological distress and positive psychological constructs in breast cancer patients. These dimensions may warrant attention in comprehensive psychological assessment and supportive care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.