RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Cancer threatens life and brings about many negative emotions in patients, which influence their satisfaction with life and contribute to a low level of their acceptance of illness. This is why the acceptance of illness is a serious problem among patients with cancer; contributes to the intensification of symptoms; and influences the patient's physical, mental, emotional, social, and spiritual condition. AIM: The purpose of this work is to assess the acceptance of illness and satisfaction with life in patients with cancer, as well as to identify social, demographical, and clinical factors that significantly differentiate their acceptance of illness and satisfaction with life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study involved 120 patients with cancer aged 18 to 88. The study was conducted in the form of a questionnaire based on standard research tools: Acceptance of Illness (AIS), Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). Social, demographical, and clinical data were collected in the original questionnaire. RESULTS: A group of 120 patients was studied, including 55.83% (n = 67) women and 44.16% (n = 53) men. The average age was 56. A general acceptance-of-illness index obtained by the patients was 21.6 ± 7.32 and a general satisfaction-with-life index was 19.14 ± 5.78. The statistical analysis indicated a significant correlation between the acceptance of illness and the intensity of pain (rHO = -0.19; p < 0.05), fatigue ((Z = 1.92; p > 0.05), and diarrhoea (t(118) = 2.54; p < 0.05). The correlation between the intensity of pain and satisfaction with life was negative (rHO = -0.20; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The greater acceptance of illness, the greater satisfaction with life in patients with cancer. Pain, fatigue, and diarrhoea decrease the acceptance of illness. In addition, pain decreases the level of satisfaction with life. Social and demographical factors do not determine the level of acceptance of illness and satisfaction with life.
RESUMEN
AIM: The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the present literature on cognitive dysfunctions in adults after surgical procedures. METHODS: MEDLINE: PubMed, OVID, Web of Science, EBSCO databases have been searched using relevant key words. The literature on cognitive dysfunctions after surgical procedures has been reviewed and the risk factors of POCD occurrence have been analyzed. RESULTS: The results from seven articles describing neuropsychological studies of 2,796 patients have been analyzed. The tests were conducted within a very short time after the procedure (7 days), within a short time (3 months) and within a long-term perspective (12-60 months). POCD within a very short time after the operation occurred with a different frequency: from 17 to 56% with a tendency to resolve over time (3-34.2%). POCD risk factors have been identified: advanced age, insulin resistance, a short education period. The type of surgical procedure, anesthesia or microembolization related to CPB, does not influence the occurrence of POCD. CONCLUSIONS: It seems that one should focus on searching risk factors outside the procedures, and that certain recommendations should be developed regarding perioperative proceedings which might be beneficial for patients at risk of the impairment of their cognitive functions after a surgical procedure.