Prevalence, severity, and impact of symptoms on female family caregivers of patients at the initiation of radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

University of California, 2 Koret Way, Box 0610, San Francisco, CA 94143-0610, USA.
Journal of Clinical Oncology (Impact Factor: 17.88). 03/2008; 26(4):599-605. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.12.2838
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In a sample of family caregivers (FCs) of patients with prostate cancer who were to begin radiation therapy (RT), the purposes were to determine the prevalence and severity of depression, anxiety, pain, sleep disturbance, and fatigue; determine the relationships among these symptoms and between these symptoms and functional status and quality of life (QOL); evaluate for differences in functional status and QOL between FCs with low and high levels of these symptoms; and determine which factors predicted FCs' functional status and QOL.
FCs were recruited before patients initiated RT and completed self-report questionnaires that evaluated demographic characteristics, symptoms, functional status, and QOL.
Sixty female FCs participated in the study. On the basis of established cut point scores for each symptom questionnaire, 12.2% of the FCs had clinically meaningful levels of depression, 40.7% anxiety, 15.0% pain, 36.7% sleep disturbance, 33.3% morning fatigue, and 30.0% evening fatigue. FCs who were older and who had lower levels of state anxiety and higher levels of depression, morning fatigue, and pain reported significantly poorer functional status (R(2) = 38.7%). FCs who were younger, had more years of education, were working, and who had higher levels of depression, morning fatigue, sleep disturbance, and lower levels of evening fatigue reported significantly lower QOL scores (R(2) = 70.1%).
A high percentage of FCs experienced clinically meaningful levels of a variety of symptoms. These symptoms have a negative impact on the FCs' functional status and QOL.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Despite the importance of primary relationships for cancer patients and their caregivers' adaptation to illness is well recognized, only a paucity of studies report about clinical interventions for the patient-caregiver dyad. The article presents the Cancer Dyads Group Intervention (CDGI), a supportive group intervention for breast cancer patients and caregivers, and preliminary findings about its effectiveness. A correspondence analysis of the verbatim transcripts of the first three groups was conducted. Findings highlight the evolution of participants during the intervention and confirm the congruence between goals and the participants' experience. Further investigation of the CDGI effectiveness is necessary.
    Journal of Psychosocial Oncology 09/2014; · 1.04 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This descriptive study was conducted to evaluate the quality of life of cancer caregivers. One hundred and seventy-eight caregivers of patients who were diagnosed with cancer in Gaziantep oncology hospital participated in the study. Data were collected by using a questionnaire and quality of life scale. The scale was scored between 0 and 10, where ‘10’ indicated the best and ‘0’ indicated the worst level. It was determined that the majority of caregivers were young and female, the overall total score average of quality of life was 4.5 ± 1.1, and the subdomain with the lowest value was the psychological subdomain. All quality of life subdomain score averages and the overall total score averages were observed to be low in women, as well as in those who provided care for their own children, who lived in the same house with the patient and who gave care for 19–24 h daily.
    International Journal of Nursing Practice 09/2013; · 0.54 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose/Objectives: To identify latent classes of individuals with distinct quality-of-life (QOL) trajectories, to evaluate for differences in demographic characteristics between the latent classes, and to evaluate for variations in pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokine genes between the latent classes.Design: Descriptive, longitudinal study.Setting: Two radiation therapy departments located in a comprehensive cancer center and a community-based oncology program in northern California.Sample: 168 outpatients with prostate, breast, brain, or lung cancer and 85 of their family caregivers (FCs).Methods: Growth mixture modeling (GMM) was employed to identify latent classes of individuals based on QOL scores measured prior to, during, and for four months following completion of radiation therapy. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and haplotypes in 16 candidate cytokine genes were tested between the latent classes. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the relationships among genotypic and phenotypic characteristics and QOL GMM group membership.Main Research Variables: QOL latent class membership and variations in cytokine genes.Findings: Two latent QOL classes were found: higher and lower. Patients and FCs who were younger, identified with an ethnic minority group, had poorer functional status, or had children living at home were more likely to belong to the lower QOL class. After controlling for significant covariates, between-group differences were found in SNPs in interleukin 1 receptor 2 (IL1R2) and nuclear factor kappa beta 2 (NFKB2). For IL1R2, carrying one or two doses of the rare C allele was associated with decreased odds of belonging to the lower QOL class. For NFKB2, carriers with two doses of the rare G allele were more likely to belong to the lower QOL class.Conclusions: Unique genetic markers in cytokine genes may partially explain interindividual variability in QOL.Implications for Nursing: Determination of high-risk characteristics and unique genetic markers would allow for earlier identification of patients with cancer and FCs at higher risk for poorer QOL. Knowledge of these risk factors could assist in the development of more targeted clinical or supportive care interventions for those identified.
    Oncology nursing forum 09/2014; 41(5):E267-E281. · 2.83 Impact Factor