Personality traits and mediating pathways to mortality risk: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Personality traits have been regularly linked with all-cause mortality risk. However, what mechanisms may provide an indirect pathway from personality traits to mortality is unclear. We sought to systematically review the literature and provide an overview of the potential mechanisms that have been identified in the literature. METHOD: Five electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and PsycArticles) were searched from inception to January 27, 2023. From 611 studies initially identified, seven studies met the final inclusion criteria. These seven papers have a combined sample of 60,104 individuals (M = 8,585, SD = 14,600; range 957-44,094). RESULTS: These papers found that several variables, such as smoking, inflammation biomarkers, blood pressure, and sleep, mediated the relationship between various personality traits and mortality. There was considerable variation in the impact of results across cohorts, even when looking at similar variables, and notable differences in methodological approaches and reporting were discussed. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified a small pool of research looking at a range of indirect pathways (mediating variables). The review identified traits with well-established associations with mortality risk, such as neuroticism, do not have consistent findings in the mediation literature and a high level of variance in the degree to which mediators account for the personality-mortality relation between different cohorts. Despite these limitations, it is clear that examining indirect effects (mediation) has a crucial role to play in developing our understanding of the complex pathways that connect personality-mortality risk. We identify several avenues and considerations for future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Clinical supervision in oncology: A narrative review.

The aim of this narrative literature review is to (a) review all empirical studies of clinical supervision (CS) in oncology and to (b) highlight some CS practice issues distinctive to cancer care. This review identified empirical studies related to qualified professionals and published in English since 1995 that connected to CS and oncology. A total of 15 studies were identified with the majority as small scale, exploratory and qualitative. Psychologists were predominantly utilised as facilitators of the CS with varied sample sizes ranging from 5-230 participants. The studies were grouped into three main categories; the impact of supervision on staff, impact of supervision on professional care/development and impact of supervision in existential exploration. This review highlighted the positive impact of CS while demonstrating the need for more methodologically sound programmes of research into CS in cancer settings so detailed models of effective supervision can develop and thereby inform practice.