4.6 Article

Quality of life and mental health in cervical and endometrial cancer survivors

期刊

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 100, 期 3, 页码 479-486

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.08.023

关键词

genital neoplasms; female; cervix neoplasms; endometrial neoplasms; quality of life; mental health

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R21 CA88293, R01CA1045-25] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. The goal of this study was to examine quality of life and mood in long-term survivors of cervical and endometrial cancer. Relationships of quality of life and mood with demographic and disease factors were also investigated. Methods. One-hundred fifty-two survivors of cervical or endometrial cancer diagnosed and treated 5-20 years ago at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics participated. Eighty-nine healthy controls were recruited from a hospital gynecology clinic. Quality of life, mood, and demographics were assessed by questionnaires. Disease characteristics of cancer survivors were abstracted from medical records. Results. There were no significant differences in quality of life or depressive symptoms between the three groups. Cervical cancer survivors reported significantly more anxiety than endometrial cancer survivors, and more dysphoria, anger, and confusion than either endometrial cancer survivors or healthy controls. Greater depression and mood disturbance were reported by unemployed and unmarried cancer survivors. Treatment modality, stage of disease, and length of time since diagnosis were not related to quality of life or mood. Conclusions. Quality of life in cervical and endometrial cancer survivors approximates that of healthy controls by 5 years post-diagnosis. However, cervical cancer survivors report more negative mood than survivors of endometrial cancer or healthy controls. Cancer survivors who are unemployed or living alone may be especially at risk for mood and mental health difficulties. (C) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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