4.6 Article

Supportive care needs in patients with lung cancer

期刊

PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY
卷 19, 期 5, 页码 480-489

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pon.1577

关键词

lung cancer; support; adult; survivorship; lung neoplasms; psychological adaptation; psychosocial factors; quality of life; personal satisfaction; coping behaviors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The goal of this study was to characterize the prevalence and intensity of supportive care needs and interest in specific supportive care services among individuals with lung cancer. Method: Participants (n = 109) were recruited from two medical centers in Southern California to complete questionnaires on physical and psychological functioning following diagnosis of lung cancer. Results: Participants reported the greatest need in the physical and daily living domain, followed by psychological needs, health system and informational needs, and patient care support needs. The most common unmet need was a lack of energy and tiredness (75%). Higher levels of supportive care needs were associated with worse physical functioning (beta = 0.30, p < 0.001), greater symptom bother (beta = 0.25, p = 0.008), lower satisfaction with health care (beta = -0.24, p = 0.002), and higher levels of intrusive thoughts about cancer (beta = 0.40, p < 0.001). The sample was most interested in receiving additional information about their disease and treatment (61.0%), exercise-related information and support (54.3%), and assistance dealing with fatigue (46.7%). Over 91% expressed interest in at least one specific supportive care service, and 51.4% were interested in one or more psychological services. Conclusion and implications for cancer survivors: Our findings suggest that lung cancer survivors have many unmet needs. Patients who report higher physical distress and intrusive stress symptoms, or lower satisfaction with their health care, may experience the highest level of supportive care need and intervention. Copyright (C) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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