C Dubey1, J De Maria2, C Hoeppli3, D C Betticher4, M Eicher5. 1. University of Applied Arts and Sciences Western Switzerland, School of Health Fribourg, Route des Cliniques 15, CH 1700 Fribourg, Switzerland; Institut universitaire de formation et de recherche en soins-IUFRS, Faculté de biologie et de médecine, Université de Lausanne-UNIL, Switzerland. Electronic address: catherine.dubey@hefr.ch. 2. Department of Medicine, University Hospital, 1002 Lausanne, Switzerland; Institut universitaire de formation et de recherche en soins-IUFRS, Faculté de biologie et de médecine, Université de Lausanne-UNIL, Switzerland. Electronic address: januska.demaria@chuv.ch. 3. University of Applied Arts and Sciences Western Switzerland, School of Health Fribourg, Switzerland. 4. Department of Medicine and Medical Oncology, Hôpital Fribourgeois, 1708 Fribourg, Switzerland. Electronic address: daniel.betticher@h-fr.ch. 5. University of Applied Arts and Sciences Western Switzerland, School of Health Fribourg, Route des Cliniques 15, CH 1700 Fribourg, Switzerland; Institut universitaire de formation et de recherche en soins-IUFRS, Faculté de biologie et de médecine, Université de Lausanne-UNIL, Switzerland. Electronic address: manuela.eicher@hefr.ch.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The concept of resilience is gaining increasing importance as a key component of supportive care but to date has rarely been addressed in studies with adult cancer patients. The purpose of our study was to describe resilience and its potential predictors and supportive care needs in cancer patients during early treatment and to explore associations between both concepts. METHODS: This descriptive study included adult cancer patients under treatment in ambulatory cancer services of a Swiss hospital. Subjects completed the 25-item Connor-Davidson-Resilience Scale and the 34-item Supportive Care Needs Survey. Descriptive, correlational and regression analysis were performed. RESULTS: 68 patients with cancer were included in the study. Compared to general population, resilience scores were significantly lower (74.4 ± 12.6 vs. 80.4 ± 12.8, p = .0002). Multiple regression analysis showed predictors ("age", "metastasis", "recurrence" and "living alone") of resilience (adjusted R2 = .19, p < .001). Highest unmet needs were observed in the domain of psychological needs. Lower resilience scores were significantly and strongly associated with higher levels of unmet psychological needs (Rho = -.68, p < .001), supportive care needs (Rho = -.49, p < .001) and information needs (Rho = -.42, p = .001). CONCLUSION: Ambulatory patients with higher levels of resilience express fewer unmet needs. Further work is needed to elucidate the mechanism of the observed relationships and if interventions facilitating resilience have a positive effect on unmet needs.
PURPOSE: The concept of resilience is gaining increasing importance as a key component of supportive care but to date has rarely been addressed in studies with adult cancerpatients. The purpose of our study was to describe resilience and its potential predictors and supportive care needs in cancerpatients during early treatment and to explore associations between both concepts. METHODS: This descriptive study included adult cancerpatients under treatment in ambulatory cancer services of a Swiss hospital. Subjects completed the 25-item Connor-Davidson-Resilience Scale and the 34-item Supportive Care Needs Survey. Descriptive, correlational and regression analysis were performed. RESULTS: 68 patients with cancer were included in the study. Compared to general population, resilience scores were significantly lower (74.4 ± 12.6 vs. 80.4 ± 12.8, p = .0002). Multiple regression analysis showed predictors ("age", "metastasis", "recurrence" and "living alone") of resilience (adjusted R2 = .19, p < .001). Highest unmet needs were observed in the domain of psychological needs. Lower resilience scores were significantly and strongly associated with higher levels of unmet psychological needs (Rho = -.68, p < .001), supportive care needs (Rho = -.49, p < .001) and information needs (Rho = -.42, p = .001). CONCLUSION: Ambulatory patients with higher levels of resilience express fewer unmet needs. Further work is needed to elucidate the mechanism of the observed relationships and if interventions facilitating resilience have a positive effect on unmet needs.
Authors: Crystal L Park; Emily Fritzson; Katherine E Gnall; Caroline Salafia; Kaleigh Ligus; Sinead Sinnott; Keith M Bellizzi Journal: Res Hum Dev Date: 2021-08-02
Authors: María Padilla-Ruiz; Cristóbal Ruiz-Román; Elisabet Pérez-Ruiz; Antonio Rueda; Maximino Redondo; Francisco Rivas-Ruiz Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-01-04 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Martin Matzka; Hanna Mayer; Sabine Köck-Hódi; Christina Moses-Passini; Catherine Dubey; Patrick Jahn; Sonja Schneeweiss; Manuela Eicher Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-04-28 Impact factor: 3.240