4.6 Article

Determinants of Quality of Life for Breast Cancer Patients in Shanghai, China

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 11, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153714

关键词

-

资金

  1. Young Medical Talents Training Program of the Pudong Health Bureau of Shanghai [PWRq2012-24]
  2. National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health [R01CA144034, UM1CA182876]
  3. Pudong Health and Family Planning Commission of Shanghai Funding
  4. [PWZz2013-15]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To evaluate the association of social support status, health insurance and clinical factors with the quality of life of Chinese women with breast cancer. Methods Information on demographics, clinical characteristics, and social support status was collected from 1,160 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer in Shanghai, China. The Perceived Social Support Scale was used to assess different sources of social support for breast cancer patients. The quality of life was evaluated using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer that consisted of five domains: breast cancer-specific, emotional, functional, physical, and social & family well-being. Multivariate linear regression models were used to evaluate the associations of demographic variables, clinical characteristics, and social support status with the quality of life measures. Results Adequate social support from family members, friends and neighbors, and higher scores of Perceived Social Support Scale were associated with significantly improved quality of life of breast cancer patients. Higher household income, medical insurance plans with low copayment, and treatment with traditional Chinese medicine for breast cancer all were associated with higher (better) scores of quality of life measures whereas patients receiving chemotherapy had significantly lower scores of quality of life. Conclusion Social support and financial aids may significantly improve the quality of life of breast cancer survivors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据