BACKGROUND: It is licely that illness perceptions can explain variations in quality of life of patients with prostate cancer across different treatment methods and stages. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine if illness perception can explain variations in quality of life of patients with prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The cross-sectional national-level study was carried out. Quality of life was evaluated with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and the Visual Analogue Scale. Illness perceptions were measured by the revised Illness Perception Questionnaire. RESULTS: The response rate was 77.1% (N=501). The variation in global quality of life was explained (32.0%) by levels of emotional representation (β=-0.126; P=0.023) and consequences (β=-0.209; P<0.01); physical functioning (27.0%), by consequences (β=-0.203; P<0.01) and chemotherapy (β=-2.911; P=0.007); role functioning (37.0%), by emotional representations (β=-0.198; P<0.01), timeline cyclical (β=-0.209; P=0.014), and stage of the disease (β=-0.779; P=0.007); emotional functioning (43.0%), by emotional representations (β=-0.361; P<0.01) and education level (β=-0.566; P=0.025); cognitive functioning (34.0%), by educational level (β=0.714; P=0.005), emotional representations (β=-0.118; P=0.019), illness coherence (β=-0.167; P=0.030), consequences (β=-0.187; P=0.001), and hormonal therapy (β=-0.778; P=0.049); and social functioning (39.0%), by consequences (β=-0.320; P<0.01) and combined treatment (β=-1.492; P=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Illness perceptions may be important while investigating quality of life in patients with prostate cancer. It may underlie quality-of-life differences in this group of patients and could inform decision makers about the importance of the provision of psychosocial services to patients with prostate cancer.
BACKGROUND: It is licely that illness perceptions can explain variations in quality of life of patients with prostate cancer across different treatment methods and stages. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine if illness perception can explain variations in quality of life of patients with prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The cross-sectional national-level study was carried out. Quality of life was evaluated with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and the Visual Analogue Scale. Illness perceptions were measured by the revised Illness Perception Questionnaire. RESULTS: The response rate was 77.1% (N=501). The variation in global quality of life was explained (32.0%) by levels of emotional representation (β=-0.126; P=0.023) and consequences (β=-0.209; P<0.01); physical functioning (27.0%), by consequences (β=-0.203; P<0.01) and chemotherapy (β=-2.911; P=0.007); role functioning (37.0%), by emotional representations (β=-0.198; P<0.01), timeline cyclical (β=-0.209; P=0.014), and stage of the disease (β=-0.779; P=0.007); emotional functioning (43.0%), by emotional representations (β=-0.361; P<0.01) and education level (β=-0.566; P=0.025); cognitive functioning (34.0%), by educational level (β=0.714; P=0.005), emotional representations (β=-0.118; P=0.019), illness coherence (β=-0.167; P=0.030), consequences (β=-0.187; P=0.001), and hormonal therapy (β=-0.778; P=0.049); and social functioning (39.0%), by consequences (β=-0.320; P<0.01) and combined treatment (β=-1.492; P=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Illness perceptions may be important while investigating quality of life in patients with prostate cancer. It may underlie quality-of-life differences in this group of patients and could inform decision makers about the importance of the provision of psychosocial services to patients with prostate cancer.
Authors: Na Zhang; Richard Fielding; Inda Soong; Karen K K Chan; Janice Tsang; Victor Lee; Conrad Lee; Alice Ng; Wing Kin Sze; Pamela Tin; Wendy Wing Tak Lam Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Ting Bao; Andrew Seidman; Qing Li; Christina Seluzicki; Victoria Blinder; Salimah H Meghani; John T Farrar; Jun J Mao Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-01-19 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Na Zhang; Richard Fielding; Inda Soong; Karen K K Chan; Conrad Lee; Alice Ng; Wing Kin Sze; Janice Tsang; Victor Lee; Wendy Wing Tak Lam Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Serana Chun Yee So; Danielle Wing Lam Ng; Qiuyan Liao; Richard Fielding; Inda Soong; Karen Kar Loen Chan; Conrad Lee; Alice Wan Ying Ng; Wing Kin Sze; Wing Lok Chan; Victor Ho Fun Lee; Wendy Wing Tak Lam Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2022-04-12