4.1 Article

Quality of life of elderly persons with cancer: a 6-month follow-up

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF CARING SCIENCES
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 178-190

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2007.00454.x

关键词

aged 65+; activities of daily living; hope; social network and support; trajectory; grandchildren; district nurse

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to investigate possible changes in quality of life (QoL) in elderly persons diagnosed with cancer (65 years and above), in relation to age, contact with the health-care system, activities of daily living, hope, social network and support. The investigation points were at time of diagnosis (baseline), and again 3 and 6 months after the diagnosis. The study also aimed to investigate which of the aforementioned factors predicted deteriorated QoL in elderly persons with cancer from baseline to the 6-month investigation. At baseline, the sample consisted of 101 individuals aged (age 65+) recently diagnosed with cancer (74 women, 27 men), but was reduced to 75 (57 women, 18 men) by the 6-month investigation point. EORTC QLQ C30, Katz ADL, Nowotny's Hope Scale and Interview Schedule for Social Interaction were used in structured personal interviews and questionnaires. Emotional function improved significantly over time, and complaints of nausea and vomiting decreased. Contact with a district nurse at baseline predicted deteriorated QoL from baseline to 6 months later. Support from grandchildren increased significantly. About 30% of the total sample deteriorated in QoL, by the significant >= 10 units, from baseline to 6-month follow-up, while about 70% remained stable in QoL from baseline. The majority of the elderly persons with cancer showed an ability to adjust to the new condition. However, in clinical practice, specific attention should be paid to the most vulnerable groups of elderly persons with cancer: those with advanced disease and decreased hope, and those with increased need of both informal and formal assistance.

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

4.1
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