4.6 Article

Symptom Burden in Chronically Ill Homebound Individuals

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 61, 期 1, 页码 126-131

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.12038

关键词

home-based primary care; palliative care; symptom management; Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale

资金

  1. Y.C. Ho/Helen and Michael Chiang Foundation
  2. Ania Wajnberg, MD

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To document the degree of symptom burden in an urban homebound population. Design Cross-sectional survey. Setting The Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors (MSVD) program. Participants All individuals newly enrolled in the MSVD. Measurements Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), which consists of 10 visual analogue scales scored from 0 to 10; symptoms include pain, tiredness, nausea, depression, anxiety, drowsiness, appetite, well-being, shortness of breath, and other. Results ESAS scores were completed for 318 participants. Most participants were aged 80 and older (68%) and female (75%); 36% were white, 22% black, and 32% Hispanic. Forty-three percent had Medicaid, and 32% lived alone. Ninety-one percent required assistance with one or more activities of daily living, 45% had a Karnofsky Performance Scale score between 0 and 40 (unable to care for self), and 43% reported severe burden on one or more symptoms. The most commonly reported symptoms were loss of appetite, lack of well-being, tiredness, and pain; the symptoms with the highest scores were depression, pain, appetite, and shortness of breath. Participants were more likely to have severe symptom burden if they self-reported their ESAS, had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or diabetes mellitus with end organ damage, or had a Charlson Comorbidity Index greater than 3 and less likely to have severe burden if they had dementia. Conclusion In chronically ill homebound adults, symptom burden is a serious problem that needs to be addressed alongside primary and specialty care needs. J Am Geriatr Soc 61:126-131, 2013.

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