4.5 Article

Women experience higher levels of fatigue than men at the end of life: A longitudinal home palliative care study

期刊

JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT
卷 33, 期 4, 页码 389-397

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2006.09.019

关键词

fatigue; gender; sex; palliative care; end of life; symptom interference; quality of life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Few studies have evaluated sex differences in the prevalence, severity, and correlates of fatigue at the end of life. The Brief Fatigue Inventory, McGill Quality of Life (MQOL) Questionnaire, and Karnofsky Performance Scale were administered at two-week intervals to 102 patients in a home palliative program. Outcomes in the sample and a regional palliative database (n = 3,096) were analyzed. Cancer was the diagnosis in 96% of patients enrolled. Prevalence (P = 0.0091) and severity of fatigue (P < 0.001) were higher in women at entry and in a repeated measures analysis over time (severity, P = 0.0048). Peformance status did not explain this difference. MQOL scores were inversely correlated to fatigue (Spearman coefficient = -0.48, P < 0.0001), but did not differ by sex. There was no difference in fatigue interference with MQOL in women and men. Although depression was higher in women (P = 0.042) and related to fatigue at entry, it did not explain the sex difference in fatigue scores. Of the sociodemographic variables examined, neither education nor living situation contributed to the fatigue difference. This study shows a sex effect in the fatigue experienced by patients with advanced illnesses, which is not explained by baseline differences in performance, depression, MQOL, education, or living situation. That fatigue interference with MQOL is the same for men and women suggests that higher fatigue scores in women reflect not only a difference in the dimension of fatigue severity, but are also relevant in re relation to impact on QOL. Assessment of fatigue should include the dimension of QOL important for both women and men.

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