Publications
Department of Medicine faculty members published more than 3,600 peer-reviewed articles in 2024.
2007
INTRODUCTION
Cancer patients experience multiple concurrent symptoms. This exploratory analysis assessed symptom burden among patients undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer to identify distinct subgroups of patients who experience differential symptom burden and assessed whether the patient subgroups were associated with deleterious quality of life (QOL) outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Women (N = 133) with stage I and II breast cancer undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy after primary surgery were evaluated at baseline and at the end of chemotherapy using the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS) and the SF-36 QOL questionnaire. Post treatment MSAS symptoms were included in hierarchical cluster analysis. Two patient subgroups were identified that corresponded to a high-symptom prevalence group and a low-symptom group.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
No marked, statistically significant differences were found between groups on demographic, symptoms, QOL, or treatment variables at baseline. Patients in the high-symptom cluster were more likely to have stage I disease (p < 0.05). The two groups of patients showed significant differences in end-of-treatment symptoms and QOL scores (p < 0.05). The high-symptom burden group was more likely to report greater symptom prevalence and poorer QOL.
CONCLUSIONS
Future research needs to examine why these differences occur despite similarities in treatment and how symptom burden can be reduced for the high-symptom prevalence group.
View on PubMed2007
To identify aspects of end-of-life care in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system that are not assessed by existing survey instruments and to identify issues that may be unique to veterans, telephone interviews using open-ended questions were conducted with family members of veterans who had received care from a VA facility in the last month of life. Responses were compared to validated end-of-life care assessment instruments in common use. The study took place in four VA medical centers and one family member per patient was invited to participate, selected from medical records using predefined eligibility criteria. These family members were asked to describe positive and negative aspects of the care the veteran received in the last month of life. Interview questions elicited perceptions of care both at VA sites and at non-VA sites. Family reports were coded and compared with items in five existing prospective and retrospective instruments that assess the quality of care that patients receive near the end of life. Interviews were completed with 66 family members and revealed 384 codes describing both positive and negative aspects of care during the last month of life. Almost half of these codes were not represented in any of the five reference instruments (n=174; 45%). These codes, some of which are unique to the veteran population, were grouped into eight categories: information about VA benefits (n=36; 55%), inpatient care (n=36; 55%), access to care (n=33; 50%), transitions in care (n=32; 48%), care that the veteran received at the time of death (n=31; 47%), home care (n=26; 40%), health care facilities (n=12; 18%), and mistakes and complications (n=18; 27%). Although most of the reference instruments assessed some aspect of these categories, they did not fully capture the experiences described by our respondents. These data suggest that many aspects of veterans' end-of-life care that are important to their families are not assessed by existing survey instruments. VA efforts to evaluate end-of-life care for veterans should not only measure common aspects of care (e.g., pain management), but also examine performance in areas that are more specific to the veteran population.
View on PubMed2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007