Lois Downey1, Ruth A Engelberg. 1. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98104, USA. ldowney@u.washington.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare quality-of-life (QOL) ratings of terminally ill patients with and without cancer over time. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of prospective data from a randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Trial conducted with terminally ill patients in Seattle, Washington, testing the efficacy of massage and guided meditation in improving patients' QOL. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred sixty-seven trial participants, of whom 127 provided follow-up data and died before data analysis. MEASUREMENTS: At enrollment, participants reported demographic characteristics, symptom distress, QOL, and primary life-limiting diagnosis. At enrollment and at follow-up interviews after every two study-provided treatment sessions, participants rated their perceived quality of life on a scale from 0 (no quality of life) to 10 (perfect quality). At the end of the study, the investigators added measures of patient's survival status, number of days between study enrollment and death, and receipt of hospice services to the data set. RESULTS: Multilevel models showed significantly steeper QOL declines for patients with cancer than for those without after adjustment for time between study enrollment and death. Over a 4-month before-death period, the average patient without cancer was estimated to experience a QOL decline of approximately 0.6 on a scale from 0 to 10, compared with a 1.2-point decline for patients with cancer. CONCLUSION:Patients with cancer face more-precipitous end-of-life challenges to quality of life than do other terminally ill persons. Therefore, clinicians must address QOL issues-not just symptom burden and distress. By introducing and discussing expected QOL declines at the end of life, clinicians may help to prepare, support, and reassure patients and their families.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To compare quality-of-life (QOL) ratings of terminally ill patients with and without cancer over time. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of prospective data from a randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Trial conducted with terminally ill patients in Seattle, Washington, testing the efficacy of massage and guided meditation in improving patients' QOL. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred sixty-seven trial participants, of whom 127 provided follow-up data and died before data analysis. MEASUREMENTS: At enrollment, participants reported demographic characteristics, symptom distress, QOL, and primary life-limiting diagnosis. At enrollment and at follow-up interviews after every two study-provided treatment sessions, participants rated their perceived quality of life on a scale from 0 (no quality of life) to 10 (perfect quality). At the end of the study, the investigators added measures of patient's survival status, number of days between study enrollment and death, and receipt of hospice services to the data set. RESULTS: Multilevel models showed significantly steeper QOL declines for patients with cancer than for those without after adjustment for time between study enrollment and death. Over a 4-month before-death period, the average patient without cancer was estimated to experience a QOL decline of approximately 0.6 on a scale from 0 to 10, compared with a 1.2-point decline for patients with cancer. CONCLUSION:Patients with cancer face more-precipitous end-of-life challenges to quality of life than do other terminally ill persons. Therefore, clinicians must address QOL issues-not just symptom burden and distress. By introducing and discussing expected QOL declines at the end of life, clinicians may help to prepare, support, and reassure patients and their families.
Authors: K E Covinsky; A W Wu; C S Landefeld; A F Connors; R S Phillips; J Tsevat; N V Dawson; J Lynn; R H Fortinsky Journal: Am J Med Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: A G E M de Boer; J J B van Lanschot; P F M Stalmeier; J W van Sandick; J B F Hulscher; J C J M de Haes; M A G Sprangers Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jen-Hau Chen; Ding-Cheng Derrick Chan; Dan K Kiely; John N Morris; Susan L Mitchell Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Lynn F Reinke; Ruth A Engelberg; Sarah E Shannon; Marjorie D Wenrich; Elizabeth K Vig; Anthony L Back; J Randall Curtis Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Dona E C Locke; Paul A Decker; Jeff A Sloan; Paul D Brown; James F Malec; Matthew M Clark; Teresa A Rummans; Karla V Ballman; Paul L Schaefer; Jan C Buckner Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2007-08-20 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Claire L Becker; Robert M Arnold; Seo Young Park; Margaret Rosenzweig; Thomas J Smith; Douglas B White; Kenneth J Smith; Yael Schenker Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-01-16 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Yael Schenker; Douglas White; Margaret Rosenzweig; Edward Chu; Charity Moore; Peter Ellis; Peggy Nikolajski; Colleen Ford; Greer Tiver; Lauren McCarthy; Robert Arnold Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Jasvinder A Singh; Celeste A Lemay; Lisa Nobel; Wenyun Yang; Norman Weissman; Kenneth G Saag; Jeroan Allison; Patricia D Franklin Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-11-01
Authors: George J Stukenborg; Leslie J Blackhall; James H Harrison; Patrick M Dillon; Paul W Read Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-11-16 Impact factor: 3.359