4.5 Article

Psychological functioning and quality of life following bone marrow transplantation: A 3-year follow-up study

Journal

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOMATIC RESEARCH
Volume 48, Issue 1, Pages 11-21

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3999(99)00059-8

Keywords

bone marrow transplantation; functional limitations; prospective study; psychological distress; quality of life

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To assess changes in quality of life and psychological distress following bone marrow transplantation (BMT) and variables related to this change. Methods: One hundred twenty-five consecutive patients who underwent bone marrow transplantation (BMT) at the Leiden University Medical Centre between 1987 and 1992 filled in questionnaires measuring quality of life, functional limitations, psychological distress, anxiety, depression, self-esteem, and health locus of control. Measurements were taken before the BMT; 1 month after discharge; and 6 months, 1 year, and 3 years after the BMT. Results: Three years after BMT, a quarter of the patients continued to experience serious functional limitations. Thirteen percent of the patients scored >4 on the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), a percentage comparable to general population prevalence. Quality of life was reported to be good to excellent by almost 90% of the patients at three years. Changes in quality of life could be explained entirely by changes in functional limitations and somatic symptoms. Changes in psychological distress were also related to these measures, and furthermore to baseline psychological functioning. Conclusion: Although patients were doing well three years after BMT, there was a group of patients needing help. In interventions special attention should be given to patients with ongoing psychological problems. Emphasis should be on coping with physical limitations. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

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