4.5 Article

Relationship between balance function and QOL in cancer survivors and healthy subjects

Journal

MEDICINE
Volume 100, Issue 46, Pages -

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000027822

Keywords

balance function; cancer survivors; physical therapy; quality of life; rehabilitation

Funding

  1. M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Support Grant [CA 016672]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cancer survivors had lower balance function and quality of life compared to healthy subjects, and there was a significant association between body sway and quality of life among cancer survivors. However, healthy subjects had subscales for quality of life related to the body sway test parameters more frequently than cancer survivors.
A previous study reported that cancer survivors exhibit decreased postural stability compared to age-matched controls. Another study showed that cancer survivors have a lower quality of life (QOL) compared to healthy subjects, and there was a significant relationship between muscle strength and QOL in cancer survivors. We aimed to investigate differences in the associations between balance function and QOL in cancer survivors and healthy subjects. Forty-one cancer survivors and 33 healthy subjects were included. Balance function was evaluated using the timed up and go test, and body sway was tested using a force platform. QOL was assessed using the medical outcome study 36-item short-form health survey. Cancer survivors exhibited significantly higher timed up and go and lower QOL than that of healthy subjects (P < .05). There was a significant association between body sway and QOL (P < .05) among cancer survivors. However, healthy subjects had subscales for QOL related to the body sway test parameters more frequently than cancer survivors (P < .05). Cancer survivors' balance function may have little effect on QOL, unlike in healthy subjects.

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