4.5 Article

A five-year prospective study of quality of life after colorectal cancer

Journal

QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
Volume 21, Issue 9, Pages 1551-1564

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-011-0067-5

Keywords

Colorectal cancer; Quality of life; Psychological distress; Response shift

Funding

  1. Cancer Council Queensland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Long-term (>= 5 years) quality of life after colorectal cancer is not well described. The present study assessed quality of life (QOL) and psychological distress in colorectal cancer survivors more than 5 years to describe changes over time and antecedents of long-term outcomes. Method A prospective survey of a population-based sample of 763 colorectal cancer patients assessed socio-demographic variables, health behaviors, optimism, threat appraisal, and perceived social support at 5 months post-diagnosis as predictors of QOL and psychological distress 5 years post-diagnosis. Results QOL improved over time (P < 0.01 for each measure); however, measures of psychological distress remained stable (P < 0.07 for each measure). Risk factors for poorer QOL and/or greater psychological distress included: later stage disease, having a permanent stoma, rectal cancer, fatigue, smoking, being single, low social support, low optimism, and a more negative cancer threat appraisal. Being women, having a pet, having a private health insurance, and receiving both surgery and adjuvant treatment were protective. Conclusion Consistent with response shift theory, the antecedents of QOL after colorectal cancer are multifactorial and include predisposing socio-demographic, medical, and psychological variables. Psychosocial interventions that target both social support and threat appraisal may be effective for this patient group. Additional stepped-up support may be needed for people from a poorer social environment who have multiple risk factors for poorer adjustment. Health system effects require further investigation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available