Dejection and self-assessment of quality of life in patients with lung cancer subjected to palliative care

A. Nowicki, Paulina Farbicka, M. Krajnik
{"title":"Dejection and self-assessment of quality of life in patients with lung cancer subjected to palliative care","authors":"A. Nowicki, Paulina Farbicka, M. Krajnik","doi":"10.5114/wo.2015.53250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim of the study To evaluate the intensity of dejection and self-assessment of quality of life in patients with lung cancer from the start of palliative care until death. Material and methods The study included 63 patients with lung cancer from the start of care until death in palliative medicine centers in Bydgoszcz in 2012–2013. The visual-analogue scale constituting part of the ESAS scale was used to assess dejection, while question number 30 of the EORTC QLQ-C30 was used for self-assessment of quality of life. Results “Moderate” and “very” intense dejection initially occurred in 19 (30%) and 24 (38%), and in the 2nd assessment in as many as 23 (36%) and 30 (48%) patients. Average quality of life deteriorated in this respect by 0.09 in the two-step scale (p = 0.005). Increase in the intensity of “moderate” dejection occurred between the 1st and 3rd assessment. Initially it occurred in 2 (9%) patients and in 14 (66%) during the 3rd assessment. In contrast, the levels of “very” severe dejection did not change significantly between the 1st and the 3rd assessment. The average quality of life deteriorated by 0.23 points (p = 0.004). A significant relationship was found only between analgesic treatment and quality of life (p < 0.0005). Other factors such as age, time from diagnosis to start of treatment, place of residence, sex, or financial condition did not affect the quality of life. Conclusions Self-assessment of the quality of life worsens with time. The intensity of dejection does not change in the last 3 weeks of life. In multivariate analysis, among the selected variables such as age, sex, place of residence, time from diagnosis to start of palliative care, financial condition, and type of painkillers used, only the latter has an impact on self-assessed quality of life.","PeriodicalId":10652,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Oncology","volume":"6 1","pages":"491 - 495"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/wo.2015.53250","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Aim of the study To evaluate the intensity of dejection and self-assessment of quality of life in patients with lung cancer from the start of palliative care until death. Material and methods The study included 63 patients with lung cancer from the start of care until death in palliative medicine centers in Bydgoszcz in 2012–2013. The visual-analogue scale constituting part of the ESAS scale was used to assess dejection, while question number 30 of the EORTC QLQ-C30 was used for self-assessment of quality of life. Results “Moderate” and “very” intense dejection initially occurred in 19 (30%) and 24 (38%), and in the 2nd assessment in as many as 23 (36%) and 30 (48%) patients. Average quality of life deteriorated in this respect by 0.09 in the two-step scale (p = 0.005). Increase in the intensity of “moderate” dejection occurred between the 1st and 3rd assessment. Initially it occurred in 2 (9%) patients and in 14 (66%) during the 3rd assessment. In contrast, the levels of “very” severe dejection did not change significantly between the 1st and the 3rd assessment. The average quality of life deteriorated by 0.23 points (p = 0.004). A significant relationship was found only between analgesic treatment and quality of life (p < 0.0005). Other factors such as age, time from diagnosis to start of treatment, place of residence, sex, or financial condition did not affect the quality of life. Conclusions Self-assessment of the quality of life worsens with time. The intensity of dejection does not change in the last 3 weeks of life. In multivariate analysis, among the selected variables such as age, sex, place of residence, time from diagnosis to start of palliative care, financial condition, and type of painkillers used, only the latter has an impact on self-assessed quality of life.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
接受姑息治疗的肺癌患者的情绪低落和生活质量自我评估
目的:评价肺癌患者从姑息治疗开始至死亡期间的抑郁程度和生活质量自我评价。材料与方法本研究纳入了2012-2013年比得哥什市姑息医学中心的63例肺癌患者,从治疗开始直到死亡。使用ESAS量表中的视觉模拟量表评估排便,使用EORTC QLQ-C30问题30对生活质量进行自我评估。结果19例(30%)和24例(38%)患者最初出现“中度”和“非常”强烈的排便,在第二次评估中分别出现23例(36%)和30例(48%)患者。在两步量表中,平均生活质量在这方面下降了0.09 (p = 0.005)。在第一次和第三次评估之间,“中度”抑郁的强度增加。最初发生在2例(9%)患者中,在第三次评估时发生在14例(66%)患者中。相比之下,“非常”严重的抑郁水平在第一次和第三次评估之间没有显着变化。平均生活质量下降0.23分(p = 0.004)。只有镇痛治疗与生活质量之间存在显著关系(p < 0.0005)。其他因素如年龄、从诊断到开始治疗的时间、居住地、性别或经济状况不影响生活质量。结论患者生活质量自我评价随时间延长而恶化。在生命的最后3周内,排便的强度没有变化。在多变量分析中,在年龄、性别、居住地、从诊断到开始姑息治疗的时间、经济状况和使用止痛药类型等选定的变量中,只有后者对自我评估的生活质量有影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Application of nitroxoline in urologic oncology – a review of evidence Health and coping styles including resources of close family members supporting leukaemia patients Clinicopathological significance of protein disulphide isomerase A3 and phosphorylated signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 in cervical carcinoma High tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes correlate with distinct gene expression profile and favourable survival in single hormone receptor-positive breast cancer The impact of altering the concentration of coffee constituents on their anticancer effect on oral squamous cell carcinoma cell line – in vitro study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1