Is finding something good in the bad always good? Benefit finding among women with breast cancer.

By P. Tomich, V. Helgeson. Health Psychology, 2004

645 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Oncology, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/700a72974bfc68bd117677ec9c4f550086aa5586

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

In Oncology

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Citations in the corpus

Health psychology: psychological adjustment to chronic disease. (2007, background): “…earlier in the cancer trajectory, however, benefit finding appears to have no or even a negative relation with positive adjustment (Sears et al. 2003, Tomich & Helgeson 2004); perhaps engagement in finding benefit serves distinct functions over the course of chronic disease (Stanton et al. 2006).”
Gender Differences in Self-Reported Posttraumatic Growth: A Meta-Analysis (2010, background): “…are a number of measures that are aimed at capturing variations of the construct of “growth” including the Benefit Finding Scale (Mohr et al., 1991; Tomich & Helgeson, 2004), Perceived Benefit Scale (McMillen & Fisher, 1998), Changes in Outlook Questionnaire (Joseph et al., 2005), Posttraumatic…”
Post–traumatic Growth as Positive Personality Change: Evidence, Controversies and Future Directions (2014, background): “People suffering from severe health problems who reported benefits caused by the trauma had lower levels of quality of life (Tomich & Helgeson, 2004).”
A meta-analytic review of benefit finding and growth. (2006, methodology): “Well-established measures of benefit finding included the PTGI (n ϭ 20), SRGS (n ϭ 16), Benefit Finding Scale 1 (n ϭ 3; Tomich & Helgeson, 2004), Benefit Finding Scale 2 (n ϭ 2; Mohr et al., 1999), and the Perceived Benefits Scale (n ϭ 3; McMillen & Fisher, 1998).”
Posttraumatic Growth in the Aftermath of Trauma: A Literature Review About Related Factors and Application Contexts (2013, background): “…studies suggested a negative relation between distress and PTG, which means that if the survivor develops a higher level of PTG he should be able to overcome the cognitive disruption and, thus, the distress levels should also decrease (Cadell, Regehr, & Hemsworth, 2003; Tomich & Helgeson, 2004).”
An Examination of Posttraumatic Growth and Posttraumatic Depreciation: Two Exploratory Studies (2008, background): “…to include the option of reporting both growth and depreciation, the scales should contain both kinds of items, rather than bipolar items, since individuals can experience both growth and depreciation in the same domain (Park & Lechner, 2006; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996; Tomich & Helgeson, 2004).”
Measurement Issues in Assessing Growth Following Stressful Life Experiences. (2006, methodology): “In a second sample of breast cancer survivors, they again identified only two factors, but found that these factors were highly correlated and had a factor structure that suggested that there was just one common dimension of growth (Tomich & Helgeson, 2004).”
Handbook of posttraumatic growth : research and practice (2006, methodology): “Further, positive and negative change items would help to minimize potential biases that may result from using uniformly positive wording, and may help to reduce the potential for a socially desirable response set (Tomich & Helgeson, 2004).”
Meaning Making and Growth: New Directions for Research on Survivors of Trauma (2006, background): “Recent research has found that even in highly stressful situations, most people report some positive changes; much of this research is taking place in the context of health crises (particularly cancer; eg, Cordova et al, 2001 ; Tomich & Helgeson, 2004 ).”
Are meaning and purpose distinct? An examination of correlates and predictors (2013, methodology): “The Perceived Benefits Scale (Carver & Antoni, 2004; Tomich & Helgeson, 2004) was used to assess posttraumatic growth and posttraumatic depreciation.”