4.7 Article

Improving Symptoms and Quality of Life of Female Cancer Survivors: a Randomized Controlled Study

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 19, 期 2, 页码 373-378

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-011-2051-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Oakland University-William Beaumont Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Surgeons, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, emphasize the importance of managing symptoms and improving the quality of life of cancer survivors. A 2008 meta-analysis of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) concluded that this technique might improve patients' adjustment to their disease. However, randomized controlled trials using standardized measures for evaluating MBSR are limited. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate, using valid and reliable measures, the effects of a unique, interactive, 8-week cancer recovery and wellness program on symptoms and quality of life of female cancer survivors. Sixty-eight female cancer patients were randomized into either an intervention or waitlisted control group. Patients were evaluated using the Symptoms Checklist (SCL-90-R), the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-30), and the Symptoms of Stress Inventory (SOSI). Of the participants, 70.6% were breast cancer survivors. Mean age was 57.5 years (treatment group) and 56.4 years (control group). Between-group demographic differences were not significant (P > 0.6). The treatment group improved significantly on the EORTC QLQ-30 (P = 0.005), on six of the eight SOSI subscales (P a parts per thousand currency sign 0.049), and on both SCL-90-R subscales (P a parts per thousand currency sign 0.023), while the control group did not improve on any of these measures (P > 0.2). The MBSR-based cancer recovery and wellness intervention improved the symptoms and quality of life of this largely breast cancer survivor population across a variety of cancer symptoms and quality-of-life measures.

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

4.7
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