4.1 Review

Dyspnea Review for the Palliative Care Professional: Assessment, Burdens, and Etiologies

期刊

JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE
卷 14, 期 10, 页码 1167-1172

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2011.0109

关键词

-

资金

  1. Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research
  2. National Cancer Institute
  3. Nation Institute of Nursing Research (National Institutes of Health [NIH])
  4. National Institute of Aging (NIH)
  5. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  6. Pfizer
  7. Lilly
  8. Bristol Myers Squibb
  9. Helsinn
  10. Amgen
  11. Kanglaite
  12. Abbott Laboratories

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Dyspnea is a common symptom experienced by many patients with chronic, life-threatening, and/or life-limiting illnesses. Although it can be defined and measured in several ways, dyspnea is best described directly by patients through regular assessment, as its burdens exert a strong influence on the patient's experience throughout the trajectory of serious illness. Its significance is amplified due to its impact on family and caregivers. Discussion: Anatomic and physiologic changes associated with dyspnea, and cognitive perceptions related to patients and the underlying disease, provide insights into how to shape interventions targeting this oppressive symptom. Additionally, as described in the concept of total dyspnea, the complex etiology and manifestation of this symptom require multidisciplinary treatment plans that focus on psychological, social, and spiritual distress as well as physical components. Several validated assessment tools are available for clinical and research use, and choice of method should be tailored to the individual patient, disease, and care setting in the context of patient-centered care. Conclusion: This article, the first in a two-part series, reviews the identification and assessment of dyspnea, the burden it entails, and the underlying respiratory and nonrespiratory etiologies that may cause or exacerbate it.

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