PURPOSE: The number of cancer survivors is growing and cancer is now viewed as a chronic disease. This has highlighted the importance of providing adequate rehabilitation to prevent physical, psychological, and social sequelae of cancer. However, it is unclear whether those in need of rehabilitation are offered this. METHODS: Using patient-observer agreement and cognitive interviews, we validated a seven-item questionnaire designed to assess cancer patients' perception of the sufficiency of the offered rehabilitation. A cross-sectional study among 2,202 Danish cancer patients affiliated with hospitals was carried out. RESULTS: The questionnaire was well understood, indicating good validity. In the cross-sectional study, 1,490 patients (68%) participated. Up to 39% of cancer patients did not receive the physical rehabilitation they felt they needed. About half of those who had felt a need to talk to a psychologist were offered this. Insufficiency of other rehabilitation offers was reported by 10-24%. Age most consistently predicted insufficient rehabilitation; higher age predicted insufficient information about support from other sources (than hospital staff) and younger age predicted lack of help to manage symptoms, return to everyday life, and deal with financial and especially work-related consequences. We found no consistent signs of traditional social inequality in the perception of rehabilitation, but we observed some signs of social inequality for unemployed or divorced/separated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Age predicted sufficiency of the rehabilitation in two directions, possibly reflecting different needs in younger and older patients. When tailoring rehabilitation programs, it should be ensured that the different needs are met.
PURPOSE: The number of cancer survivors is growing and cancer is now viewed as a chronic disease. This has highlighted the importance of providing adequate rehabilitation to prevent physical, psychological, and social sequelae of cancer. However, it is unclear whether those in need of rehabilitation are offered this. METHODS: Using patient-observer agreement and cognitive interviews, we validated a seven-item questionnaire designed to assess cancerpatients' perception of the sufficiency of the offered rehabilitation. A cross-sectional study among 2,202 Danish cancerpatients affiliated with hospitals was carried out. RESULTS: The questionnaire was well understood, indicating good validity. In the cross-sectional study, 1,490 patients (68%) participated. Up to 39% of cancerpatients did not receive the physical rehabilitation they felt they needed. About half of those who had felt a need to talk to a psychologist were offered this. Insufficiency of other rehabilitation offers was reported by 10-24%. Age most consistently predicted insufficient rehabilitation; higher age predicted insufficient information about support from other sources (than hospital staff) and younger age predicted lack of help to manage symptoms, return to everyday life, and deal with financial and especially work-related consequences. We found no consistent signs of traditional social inequality in the perception of rehabilitation, but we observed some signs of social inequality for unemployed or divorced/separated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Age predicted sufficiency of the rehabilitation in two directions, possibly reflecting different needs in younger and older patients. When tailoring rehabilitation programs, it should be ensured that the different needs are met.
Authors: Lis Adamsen; Morten Quist; Julie Midtgaard; Christina Andersen; Tom Møller; Lasse Knutsen; Anders Tveterås; Mikael Rorth Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2005-08-12 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Denise Heseltine; Donna Niedzwiecki; Donna Hollis; Leonard B Saltz; Robert J Mayer; James Thomas; Heidi Nelson; Renaud Whittom; Alexander Hantel; Richard L Schilsky; Charles S Fuchs Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-07-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Vera Peuckmann; Ola Ekholm; Niels Kristian Rasmussen; Susanne Møller; Mogens Groenvold; Peer Christiansen; Jørgen Eriksen; Per Sjøgren Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2006-09-29 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Lone Ross; Morten Aagaard Petersen; Anna Thit Johnsen; Louise Hyldborg Lundstrøm; Line Lund; Mogens Groenvold Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-04-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Lone Ross; Morten Aagaard Petersen; Anna Thit Johnsen; Louise Hyldborg Lundstrøm; Mogens Groenvold Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-06-08 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Lise Vilstrup Holm; Dorte Gilså Hansen; Christoffer Johansen; Peter Vedsted; Pia Veldt Larsen; Jakob Kragstrup; Jens Søndergaard Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Judith C Booij; Marieke Zegers; Pauline M P J Evers; Michelle Hendriks; Diana M J Delnoij; Jany J D J M Rademakers Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2013-04-23 Impact factor: 4.430