Socioeconomic conditions and number of pain sites in women

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Women in deprived socioeconomic situations run a high pain risk. Although number of pain sites (NPS) is considered highly relevant in pain assessment, little is known regarding the relationship between socioeconomic conditions and NPS.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study population comprised 653 women; 160 recurrence-free long-term gynecological cancer survivors, and 493 women selected at random from the general population. Demographic characteristics and co-morbidity over the past 12 months were assessed. Socioeconomic conditions were measured by Socioeconomic Condition Index (SCI), comprising education, employment status, income, ability to pay bills, self-perceived health, and satisfaction with number of close friends. Main outcome measure NPS was recorded using a body outline diagram indicating where the respondents had experienced pain during the past week. Chi-square test and forward stepwise logistic regression were applied.</p> <p>Results and Conclusion</p> <p>There were only minor differences in SCI scores between women with 0, 1-2 or 3 NPS. Four or more NPS was associated with younger age, higher BMI and low SCI. After adjustment for age, BMI and co-morbidity, we found a strong association between low SCI scores and four or more NPS, indicating that there is a threshold in the NPS count for when socioeconomic determinants are associated to NPS in women.</p

Patient-reported outcome measures of the impact of cancer on patient’s everyday lives: a systematic review

Purpose: Patients with advanced disease are living longer and commonly used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) may miss relevant elements of the quality of extended survival. This systematic review examines the measures used to capture aspects of the quality of survival including impact on patients’ everyday lives such as finances, work and family roles. Methods: Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO restricted to English language articles. Information on study characteristics, instruments and outcomes was systematically extracted and synthesised. A predefined set of criteria was used to rate the quality of studies. Results: From 2761 potentially relevant articles, 22 met all inclusion criteria, including 10 concerning financial distress, 3 on roles and responsibilities and 9 on multiple aspects of social well-being. Generally, studies were not of high quality; many lacked bias free participant selection, had confounding factors and had not accounted for all participants. High levels of financial distress were reported and were associated with multiple demographic factors such as age and income. There were few reports concerned with impacts on patients’ roles/responsibilities in everyday life although practical and emotional struggles with parenting were identified. Social difficulties were common and associated with multiple factors including being a caregiver. Many studies were single time-point surveys and used non-validated measures. Exceptions were employment of the COST and Social Difficulties Inventory (SDI), validated measures of financial and social distress respectively. Conclusions: Impact on some important parts of patients’ everyday lives is insufficiently and inconsistently captured. Further PROM development focussing on roles and responsibilities, including work and caring for dependents, is warranted. Implications for Cancer Survivors: Factors such as finances, employment and responsibility for caring for dependents (e.g. children and elderly relatives) can affect the well-being of cancer survivors. There is a need to ensure that any instruments used to assess patients’ social well-being are broad enough to include these areas so that any difficulties arising can be better understood and appropriately supported

What is covered by 'Cancer Rehabilitation' in PubMed? A review of randomized controlled trials 1990-2011

Objective: This focused review examines randomized controlled studies included by the term “cancer rehabilitation” in PubMed. The research questions concern the type of interventions performed and their methodological quality. Design: Using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms: neoplasm AND rehabilitation, all articles with randomized controlled studies that included adult cancer patients, written in English, were extracted from PubMed. Papers covering physical exercise, psychiatric/psychological treatment or social support only were excluded as they had been reviewed recently. Abstracts and papers were assessed by 3 pairs of reviewers, and descriptive information was extracted systematically. Methodological quality was rated on a 10-item index scale, and the cut-off for acceptable quality was set at ≥ 8. Results: A total of 132 (19%) of the 683 identified papers met the eligibility criteria and were assessed in detail. The papers were grouped into 5 thematic categories: 44 physical; 15 art and expressive; 47 psycho-educative; 21 emotionally supportive; and 5 others. Good quality of design was observed in 32 studies, 18 of them uni-dimensional and 14 multi-dimensional. Conclusion: Published randomized controlled studies on cancer rehabilitation are heterogeneous in terms of content and samples, and are mostly characterized by suboptimal design quality. Future studies should be more specific and well-designed with sufficient statistical strength

What is covered by "Cancer Rehabilitation" in PubMed? A review of randomized controlled trials 1990-2011

Objective: This focused review examines randomized controlled studies included by the term “cancer rehabilitation” in PubMed. The research questions concern the type of interventions performed and their methodological quality. Design: Using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms: neoplasm AND rehabilitation, all articles with randomized controlled studies that included adult cancer patients, written in English, were extracted from PubMed. Papers covering physical exercise, psychiatric/psychological treatment or social support only were excluded as they had been reviewed recently. Abstracts and papers were assessed by 3 pairs of reviewers, and descriptive information was extracted systematically. Methodological quality was rated on a 10-item index scale, and the cut-off for acceptable quality was set at ≥ 8. Results: A total of 132 (19%) of the 683 identified papers met the eligibility criteria and were assessed in detail. The papers were grouped into 5 thematic categories: 44 physical; 15 art and expressive; 47 psycho-educative; 21 emotionally supportive; and 5 others. Good quality of design was observed in 32 studies, 18 of them uni-dimensional and 14 multi-dimensional. Conclusion: Published randomized controlled studies on cancer rehabilitation are heterogeneous in terms of content and samples, and are mostly characterized by suboptimal design quality. Future studies should be more specific and well-designed with sufficient statistical strength