4.5 Article

Comparison of quality of life among long-term melanoma survivors and non-melanoma controls: a cross-sectional study

期刊

QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
卷 26, 期 7, 页码 1761-1766

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-017-1532-6

关键词

Quality of life; Melanoma; Cancer survivorship; SF-36

资金

  1. Masonic Cancer Center of the University of Minnesota
  2. National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute [P30CA077598]
  3. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [UL1TR000114]
  4. University of Minnesota Masonic Cancer Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Little is known about specific concerns facing long-term melanoma survivors. The goal of this study was to compare quality of life (QOL) and mental health between long-term melanoma survivors and population controls. Participants from a previously conducted case-control study of risk factors for melanoma were recruited for a cross-sectional survey. Generic QOL and emotional health were measured using the SF-36 and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale questionnaires. A total of 724 melanoma survivors and 660 controls participated. Most melanoma survivors had stage I disease (85.6%); mean time from diagnosis was 9.6 +/- 1.0 years. Comparisons of QOL measures between melanoma survivors and controls were conducted using regression models, adjusting for potential confounders. Melanoma survivors, compared to controls, reported statistically significant but only slightly higher physical functioning and bodily pain QOL subscale scores than controls and otherwise similar QOL as measured by the remaining six SF-36 subscale scores. Prevalence of anxiety (18.1% vs. 19.3%, adjusted OR = 1.00 (0.74, 1.36); p = 1.00) and depression (7.2% vs. 9.8%, adjusted OR = 0.74 (0.48, 1.16); p = 1.00) were similar between melanoma survivors and controls. Long-term early stage melanoma survivors report similar general QOL and mental health compared to population controls. Further research is needed to identify concerns more specific to melanoma.

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

4.5
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