D C Owen1, K P Parker, D B McGuire. 1. School of Nursing, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVES: To compare the subjective sleep quality of a group of patients with cancer undergoing treatment and a normative sample of healthy comparison subjects. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a single time point in a repeated measures descriptive-correlational study. SAMPLE/ SETTING: Convenience sample of 15 patients with cancer receiving antineoplastic therapy and admitted to a tertiary university medical center for fever or neutropenia and 52 healthy comparison subjects without sleep disturbances. Although both groups were of similar age, a higher percentage of men comprised the comparison group. METHODS: Patients completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) on the first day of hospitalization to reflect their perceptions of sleep for the month prior to hospitalization. Healthy comparison subject scores on the PSQI were obtained from a published report outlining psychometric properties of the PSQI (Buysse, Reynolds, Monk, Berman, & Kupfer, 1989). MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Sleep latency, sleep duration, sleep efficiency, sleep disturbances, medication use, daytime dysfunction, and global sleep quality. FINDINGS: Patients with cancer reported significantly poorer overall sleep quality accompanied by more daytime dysfunction. The incidence of specific sleep disturbances, such as snoring and dyspnea, was not different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: This small sample of patients reported significantly poorer sleep quality than an historical comparison group. Specific sleep disturbances commonly seen in the general population were not problematic for the patients with cancer. Limited sample size and use of an historical comparison group need to be considered in interpreting and applying these findings. Additional research is needed to further characterize the nature of sleep problems in patients with cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Nurses need to assess sleep in their patients, including its impact on quality of life and functional status.
PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVES: To compare the subjective sleep quality of a group of patients with cancer undergoing treatment and a normative sample of healthy comparison subjects. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a single time point in a repeated measures descriptive-correlational study. SAMPLE/ SETTING: Convenience sample of 15 patients with cancer receiving antineoplastic therapy and admitted to a tertiary university medical center for fever or neutropenia and 52 healthy comparison subjects without sleep disturbances. Although both groups were of similar age, a higher percentage of men comprised the comparison group. METHODS:Patients completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) on the first day of hospitalization to reflect their perceptions of sleep for the month prior to hospitalization. Healthy comparison subject scores on the PSQI were obtained from a published report outlining psychometric properties of the PSQI (Buysse, Reynolds, Monk, Berman, & Kupfer, 1989). MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Sleep latency, sleep duration, sleep efficiency, sleep disturbances, medication use, daytime dysfunction, and global sleep quality. FINDINGS:Patients with cancer reported significantly poorer overall sleep quality accompanied by more daytime dysfunction. The incidence of specific sleep disturbances, such as snoring and dyspnea, was not different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: This small sample of patients reported significantly poorer sleep quality than an historical comparison group. Specific sleep disturbances commonly seen in the general population were not problematic for the patients with cancer. Limited sample size and use of an historical comparison group need to be considered in interpreting and applying these findings. Additional research is needed to further characterize the nature of sleep problems in patients with cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Nurses need to assess sleep in their patients, including its impact on quality of life and functional status.
Authors: Joseph A Roscoe; Michael L Perlis; Wilfred R Pigeon; Kristen H O'Neill; Charles E Heckler; Sara E Matteson-Rusby; Oxana G Palesh; Michelle Shayne; Alissa Huston Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2011-09-22 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Kristin M Phillips; Heather S Jim; Kristine A Donovan; Mary C Pinder-Schenck; Paul B Jacobsen Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2011-02-11 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Lauren Clevenger; Andrew Schrepf; Koenraad Degeest; David Bender; Michael Goodheart; Amina Ahmed; Laila Dahmoush; Frank Penedo; Joseph Lucci; Premal H Thaker; Luis Mendez; Anil K Sood; George M Slavich; Susan K Lutgendorf Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-06-24 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Julie L Otte; Janet S Carpenter; Kathleen M Russell; Silvia Bigatti; Victoria L Champion Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2010-01-18 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Julie L Otte; Kevin L Rand; Janet S Carpenter; Kathleen M Russell; Victoria L Champion Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2012-08-25 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Debra L Barton; Pamela J Atherton; Daniel V Satele; Rui Qin; Shaker Dakhil; Teri Pipe; Timothy Hobday; Kelli Fee-Schroeder; Charles L Loprinzi Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-04-19 Impact factor: 3.603