Andrea L Cheville1, Lori Rhudy2, Jeffrey R Basford3, Joan M Griffin4, Ann Marie Flores5. 1. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. Electronic address: Cheville.andrea@mayo.edu. 2. Department of Nursing, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; School of Nursing, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 3. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 4. Department of Health Sciences Research, Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 5. Department of Physical Therapy, Movement and Rehabilitation Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, MA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the proportion and characteristics of patients with late stage cancer that are and are not receptive to receiving rehabilitation services, and the rationale for their level of interest. DESIGN: Prospective mixed-methods study. SETTING: Comprehensive cancer center in a quaternary medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with stage IIIC or IV non-small cell or extensive stage small cell lung cancer (N=311). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Telephone-acquired responses to the administration of (1) the Activity Measure for Post Acute Care Computer Adaptive Test (AM-PAC-CAT); (2) numerical rating scales for pain, dyspnea, fatigue, general emotional distress, and distress associated with functional limitations; (3) a query regarding receptivity to receipt of rehabilitation services, and (4) a query about rationale for nonreceptivity. RESULTS: Overall, 99 (31.8%) of the study's 311 participants expressed interest in receiving rehabilitation services: 38 at the time of enrollment and an additional 61 during at least 1 subsequent contact. Participants expressing interest were more likely to have a child as primary caregiver (18.18% vs 9.91%, P=.04) and a musculoskeletal comorbidity (42.4% vs 31.6%, P=.05). Function-related distress was highly associated with receptivity, as were lower AM-PAC-CAT scores. Reasons provided for lack of interest in receiving services included a perception of their limited benefit, being too busy, and prioritization below more pressing tasks/concerns. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of patients with late stage lung cancer are likely to be interested in receiving rehabilitation services despite high levels of disability and related distress. These findings suggest that patient misperception of the role of rehabilitation services may be a barrier to improved function and quality of life. Efforts to educate patients on the benefits of rehabilitation and to more formally integrate rehabilitation as part of comprehensive care may curb these missed opportunities.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the proportion and characteristics of patients with late stage cancer that are and are not receptive to receiving rehabilitation services, and the rationale for their level of interest. DESIGN: Prospective mixed-methods study. SETTING: Comprehensive cancer center in a quaternary medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with stage IIIC or IV non-small cell or extensive stage small cell lung cancer (N=311). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Telephone-acquired responses to the administration of (1) the Activity Measure for Post Acute Care Computer Adaptive Test (AM-PAC-CAT); (2) numerical rating scales for pain, dyspnea, fatigue, general emotional distress, and distress associated with functional limitations; (3) a query regarding receptivity to receipt of rehabilitation services, and (4) a query about rationale for nonreceptivity. RESULTS: Overall, 99 (31.8%) of the study's 311 participants expressed interest in receiving rehabilitation services: 38 at the time of enrollment and an additional 61 during at least 1 subsequent contact. Participants expressing interest were more likely to have a child as primary caregiver (18.18% vs 9.91%, P=.04) and a musculoskeletal comorbidity (42.4% vs 31.6%, P=.05). Function-related distress was highly associated with receptivity, as were lower AM-PAC-CAT scores. Reasons provided for lack of interest in receiving services included a perception of their limited benefit, being too busy, and prioritization below more pressing tasks/concerns. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of patients with late stage lung cancer are likely to be interested in receiving rehabilitation services despite high levels of disability and related distress. These findings suggest that patient misperception of the role of rehabilitation services may be a barrier to improved function and quality of life. Efforts to educate patients on the benefits of rehabilitation and to more formally integrate rehabilitation as part of comprehensive care may curb these missed opportunities.
Authors: Rod S Taylor; Allan Brown; Shah Ebrahim; Judith Jolliffe; Hussein Noorani; Karen Rees; Becky Skidmore; James A Stone; David R Thompson; Neil Oldridge Journal: Am J Med Date: 2004-05-15 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Elena E Takeuchi; Ada Keding; Noha Awad; Ursula Hofmann; Lyndsay J Campbell; Peter J Selby; Julia M Brown; Galina Velikova Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael T Cibulka; Douglas M White; Judith Woehrle; Marcie Harris-Hayes; Keelan Enseki; Timothy L Fagerson; James Slover; Joseph J Godges Journal: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 4.751
Authors: Wendy J Coster; Stephen M Haley; Patricia L Andres; Larry H Ludlow; Tamara L Y Bond; Peng-Sheng Ni Journal: Med Care Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: J F Lehmann; J A DeLisa; C G Warren; B J deLateur; P L Bryant; C G Nicholson Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 1978-09 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Heidi A Hamann; Elizabeth S Ver Hoeve; Lisa Carter-Harris; Jamie L Studts; Jamie S Ostroff Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2018-05-23 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Lara Edbrooke; Linda Denehy; Catherine L Granger; Suzanne Kapp; Sanchia Aranda Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-04-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Alberto Codima; Willian das Neves Silva; Ana Paula de Souza Borges; Gilberto de Castro Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-05-09 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Joanne Bayly; Bethany M Edwards; Nicola Peat; Geoffrey Warwick; Ivo M Hennig; Arvind Arora; Andrew Wilcock; Irene J Higginson; Matthew Maddocks Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2018-10-18