4.6 Article

Symptom hyper-expression in advanced cancer patients with anxiety and depression admitted to an acute supportive/palliative care unit

期刊

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
卷 27, 期 8, 页码 3081-3088

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-018-4624-0

关键词

Advanced cancer; Anxiety; Depression; Palliative care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeThe aim of this study was to compare symptom expression in advanced cancer patients with depression and anxiety and in patients with no such symptoms.MethodsSecondary analysis of a previous study assessing the role of an acute palliative supportive care unit (APSCU) in a comprehensive cancer center. Patients completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) at admission (T0) and 7days after or at discharge (T7).ResultsThree hundred-fourteen consecutive cancer patients admitted to the APSCU were surveyed. Eighty-six and 66 patients improved their level of depression and anxiety, respectively (passing from 4 to 0-3, from T0 to T7), after that palliative care intervention resulted in a significant improvement of the other symptoms. Changes were statistically significant for both symptoms (P<0.0005). Patients admitted for uncontrolled pain were more likely to be anxious, while patients admitted for other symptoms or end-of-life care were more likely to be depressed. The presence of anxiety and depression (4/10 on ESAS) was significantly associated with a higher level of symptom expression at admission and at T7 (P<0.0005). In patients presenting both psychological symptoms, symptom expression was significantly more relevant in comparison with patients not reporting moderate-severe psychological symptoms. Pain and depression were independently associated with anxiety at T0. Variables independently associated with depression at T0 were drowsiness, appetite, and anxiety.ConclusionsPsychological symptoms of ESAS concur to hyper-express some symptoms and make symptom control more difficult. A clear association between anxiety and depression exists.

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