ABSTRACT
Background: Inpatient rehabilitation for cancer patients has been demonstrated to improve patients' health related quality of life (HRQoL) effectively. The purpose of this study was to compare changes in general health and HRQoL of cancer patients who were referred to inpatient rehabilitation (IR) with those in two control groups who underwent outpatient management either with advice for inpatient rehabilitation (A+) or without (A-). Methods: In this naturalistic, longitudinal, controlled cohort study, changes in general health and HRQoL were assessed at either discharge of acute hospital or start of rehabilitation (baseline) and at the follow-up 3 weeks later or end of rehabilitation. Outcome variables included general health and HRQoL assessed by the Short Form 36 (SF-36) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT), and fatigue (FACT-F), depression and anxiety by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Changes on the scores were compared with bivariate and multivariate analyses using standardized mean differences (SMD). Results: IR patients (n=133) were on average older, reported lower HRQoL and health, and suffered more frequently from carcinoma than patients of the A+ (n=30) and the A- (n=82) groups. In the IR patients, pain, physical functioning, mental health, vitality, and fatigue improved significantly compared to the A+ controls. Compared to the A- group, the bivariate effects were lower but still statistically significant on many scales. Conclusions: IR showed moderate, statistically significant superior effects over outpatient management of cancer patients after acute treatment. Findings indicate that inpatient cancer rehabilitation can be recommended as an effective management after acute treatment. As today, referrals to inpatient rehabilitation for cancer patients are still not based on structured standardized procedures, the implementation of such screening is needed to address patients' needs and to render the potential for rehabilitation more reliable.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Lung transplantation (LTx) aims to reduce physical disability and mental distress, extend survival, and improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In this systematic review we aimed to: (1) augment evidence regarding measures to assess HRQoL and psychological outcomes after LTx; and (2) summarize HRQoL and psychological outcomes after LTx. METHODS: Validated and standardized instruments with well-known psychometric properties used for assessing HRQoL and psychological outcomes after LTx were identified by means of comprehensive literature searches of PsychINFO and Medline/PubMed, up through March 2014, using the following search terms in various combinations: lung transplantation; physical functioning; symptom experience; mental health; anxiety; depression; distress; social functioning; life satisfaction; and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 371 titles and abstracts. Of these, 279 were retrieved for further assessment and 63 articles selected for final review. Thirty-nine studies were found for HRQoL, 15 for physical functioning, 5 for mental health and 4 for social functioning. A total of 50 psychometric instruments were encountered. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable heterogeneity exists in methodology, operational concepts and applied outcome measures in the existing literature on HRQoL and psychological outcomes after LTx. Nevertheless, the studies generally point to significant improvements in both mental health and HRQoL post-transplant. Further research is warranted utilizing consistent outcome measures, including LTx-specific measures and longitudinal study designs.
Subject(s)
Lung Transplantation/psychology , Quality of Life , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , PsychometricsABSTRACT
QUESTION UNDER STUDY: Rehabilitation for cancer patients aims to reduce physical disability and mental distress resulting from the disease and its treatment. However, little is known about the use of cancer inpatient rehabilitation in Switzerland in relation to sociodemographic and medical characteristics. The main purpose of this study was to evaluate whether there are differences in sociodemographic and medical characteristics between patients who underwent inpatient rehabilitation (users) and those who did not (nonusers). METHODS: A total of 238 cancer patients from the University Hospital Zurich were included. The sociodemographic and medical characteristics of inpatient rehabilitation users were assessed and compared with those of nonusers. We analysed the differences between inpatient rehabilitation users and nonusers. RESULTS: Of the patients included, 101 (42.4%) used inpatient rehabilitation. They were less likely to be employed (p = 0.029), stayed longer in hospital (p <0.001), and were more likely to have semiprivate or private supplementary health insurance (p = 0.030) than nonusers. There were differences in cancer site (p = 0.001). Patients with tumours of the digestive organs or of the thoracic organs were more likely to use rehabilitation, whereas breast cancer patients were less likely to use it. Stratified analyses showed that male patients with semiprivate or private supplementary health insurance (p = 0.037), lower education (p = 0.039), and lower likelihood of employment (p = 0.051) were more likely to use rehabilitation. Women with an advanced tumour stage used inpatient rehabilitation more often (p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Findings show the influence of duration of hospitalisation, insurance type, cancer site, employment status, and gender on the use of inpatient cancer rehabilitation. The results indicate the need of structured standardised procedures for medical referral to be implemented based on screening.
