4.2 Review

PILOT STUDY TO DESCRIBE THE TRAJECTORY OF SYMPTOMS AND ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES OF ADULTS LIVING WITH LOW-GRADE GLIOMA

期刊

SEMINARS IN ONCOLOGY NURSING
卷 34, 期 5, 页码 472-485

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.soncn.2018.10.006

关键词

glioma; symptoms; quality of life; adaptive leadership

资金

  1. ADAPT Center (Center for Adaptive Leadership in Symptom Science) - National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Nursing Research award [1P30-NR014139]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NURSING RESEARCH [P30NR014139] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: To describe the adaptability to the patterns in symptoms and quality of life (QoL) during 6 months post low-grade glioma diagnosis by valid and reliable tools; to identify through qualitative interviews patient/provider adaptive techniques and strategies; and to assess associations among patient characteristics, symptoms and QoL, and adaptive techniques or strategies. DATA SOURCES: Demographic, clinical and pathologic data from medical records. Validated instruments that assess QoL, fatigue, depression, and distress were completed at 2, 4, and 6 months post diagnosis. Qualitative interviews identifying the symptoms, challenges, adaptive techniques and strategies were conducted at 4 and 6 months. CONCLUSION: The most frequently used adaptive strategies included: obtaining community support (87%), managing expectations (73%) and support systems (67%), and seeking out knowledge about physical (67%) and behavioral symptoms (53%). Seizures were reported with IDH1(mut) (11%) but not IDH1(wildtype) Patients with either IDH1(mut) or TERTmut consistently reported lower QoL and higher distress, depression, and fatigue scores. IDH1/TERTmut may be related to lower QoL because of IDH1(mut)-related seizures. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Findings provide a list of adaptive strategies and characteristics to address the problems and symptoms that may improve overall QoL in patients with low-grade glioma.

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

4.2
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