PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVES: To verify the predictive capacity of the stress-process theory to emeanplain persistent fatigue following completion of breast cancer treatments; to verify the relationship between interleukin-1b and fatigue. DESIGN: Correlational. SETTING: Tertiary medical center in Quebec City, Canada. SAMPLE: A systematic sample of 103 women in remission from breast cancer was recruited. The mean age was 54 years. Participants with a depressive mood, insomnia, or stage IV cancer were emeancluded. METHODS: Participants were met during their follow-up appointment after the end of radiation therapy. Questionnaires on fatigue, stress variables, and other confounding variables were completed by telephone interview. Blood samples also were collected to measure the serum level of interleukin-1b. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Fatigue, several variables from the stress-process theory, pain, menopausal symptoms, and demographic and medical variables. FINDINGS: Fatigue was related theoretically and coherently to many stress-process variables. By controlling for pain, the final regression model included cancer stressors and passive and active coping as predictors, which accounted for 41% of the variance in fatigue. No relationship was found between fatigue and interleukin-1b. CONCLUSIONS: The results supported the relevance of the stress-process theory for emeanplaining cancer-related fatigue. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Nursing interventions based on this theoretical framework could be developed. In addition, further clinical research that tests the efficacy of these psycho-educative interventions in preventing persistent fatigue and improving the quality of life of women with breast cancer is recommended.
PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVES: To verify the predictive capacity of the stress-process theory to emeanplain persistent fatigue following completion of breast cancer treatments; to verify the relationship between interleukin-1b and fatigue. DESIGN: Correlational. SETTING: Tertiary medical center in Quebec City, Canada. SAMPLE: A systematic sample of 103 women in remission from breast cancer was recruited. The mean age was 54 years. Participants with a depressive mood, insomnia, or stage IV cancer were emeancluded. METHODS:Participants were met during their follow-up appointment after the end of radiation therapy. Questionnaires on fatigue, stress variables, and other confounding variables were completed by telephone interview. Blood samples also were collected to measure the serum level of interleukin-1b. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Fatigue, several variables from the stress-process theory, pain, menopausal symptoms, and demographic and medical variables. FINDINGS:Fatigue was related theoretically and coherently to many stress-process variables. By controlling for pain, the final regression model included cancer stressors and passive and active coping as predictors, which accounted for 41% of the variance in fatigue. No relationship was found between fatigue and interleukin-1b. CONCLUSIONS: The results supported the relevance of the stress-process theory for emeanplaining cancer-related fatigue. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Nursing interventions based on this theoretical framework could be developed. In addition, further clinical research that tests the efficacy of these psycho-educative interventions in preventing persistent fatigue and improving the quality of life of women with breast cancer is recommended.
Authors: Leorey N Saligan; Karin Olson; Kristin Filler; David Larkin; Fiona Cramp; Sriram Yennurajalingam; Yennu Sriram; Carmen P Escalante; Auro del Giglio; Kord M Kober; Jayesh Kamath; Oxana Palesh; Karen Mustian Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-05-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kristin Garrett; Anand Dhruva; Theresa Koetters; Claudia West; Steven M Paul; Laura B Dunn; Bradley E Aouizerat; Bruce A Cooper; Marylin Dodd; Kathryn Lee; William Wara; Patrick Swift; Christine Miaskowski Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2011-03-31 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Cielito C Reyes-Gibby; Michael D Swartz; Xiaoying Yu; Xifeng Wu; Sriram Yennurajalingam; Karen O Anderson; Margaret R Spitz; Sanjay Shete Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-07-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Andrew H Miller; Sonia Ancoli-Israel; Julienne E Bower; Lucile Capuron; Michael R Irwin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kathleen Meeske; Ashley Wilder Smith; Catherine M Alfano; Bonnie A McGregor; Anne McTiernan; Kathy B Baumgartner; Kathleen E Malone; Bryce B Reeve; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Leslie Bernstein Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2007-04-25 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Abbas H Panju; Ali Danesh; Mark D Minden; David J Kelvin; Shabbir M H Alibhai Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2008-10-18 Impact factor: 3.603