4.5 Article

Psychological distress among women with newly diagnosed breast cancer

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY NURSING
卷 16, 期 4, 页码 439-443

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejon.2011.10.001

关键词

Distress; Screening; Problem list; Cancer; Psychosocial

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Psychological distress is common in the cancer continuum. Our objectives were to determine the prevalence of distress and to investigate the related problems and the characteristics of women with breast cancer who experienced psychological distress at the time of diagnosis. Methods: We used cross-sectional data from a questionnaire study. Women with newly diagnosed breast cancer were consecutively invited to respond before breast surgery. Between October 2008 and October 2009, a total of 357 responded out of 426 (84%) invited. Among these, 343 patients completed the 'distress thermometer' to measure psychological distress and the accompanying 'problem list' to identify related problems. Logistic regression models with 95% confidence intervals were used to estimate the associations between psychological distress, age, social support and domains on the problem list. Results: With a cut-off of 3 on the distress thermometer, 77% of women with breast cancer reported distress, whereas when the cut-off was 7, 43% were distressed. The mean distress score was 5.4 (SD, 3.1). The most frequently reported problems were worry (77%) and nervousness (71%). Distress was significantly associated with the total score and three domains on the problem list. Younger women (<50 years) reported higher levels of distress than older (>= 50 years). We found no significant association between distress and having a partner or someone outside the family to rely on. Conclusions: Distress was reported by 77% of patients. Age and problem list were significantly associated with distress. No significant association between psychological distress and social support was observed. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.5
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