L Sarna1, M L Brecht. 1. School of Nursing, University of California, Los Angeles 90095-6918, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the structure of symptom distress in women with advanced lung cancer. DESIGN: Descriptive. SETTING: Oncology clinics and private offices. SUBJECTS: Sixty women with advanced lung cancer (71% non-small-cell); the majority received palliative treatment (88%). OUTCOME MEASURES: Symptom Distress Scale and Karnofsky Performance Status Scale. METHOD: Factor analytic techniques (principal components, varimax rotation) to investigate combinations of all symptoms in the Symptom Distress Scale and combinations of serious symptoms. RESULTS: Fatigue, disruptions in outlook, frequent pain, and difficulties in sleeping were rated the most distressing and were the most prevalent serious disruptions. A four-factor solution for the symptom distress ratings explained 63.3% of the variance and revealed groups of items representing emotional and physical suffering, gastrointestinal distress, respiratory distress, and malaise. Symptoms with a rating of serious distress were represented by five factors with emotional and physical suffering as separate factors. Symptoms were significantly related to Karnofsky Performance Status. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple symptoms formed distinct congregations of distress. Symptom control requires consideration as a multivariate approach.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the structure of symptom distress in women with advanced lung cancer. DESIGN: Descriptive. SETTING: Oncology clinics and private offices. SUBJECTS: Sixty women with advanced lung cancer (71% non-small-cell); the majority received palliative treatment (88%). OUTCOME MEASURES: Symptom Distress Scale and Karnofsky Performance Status Scale. METHOD: Factor analytic techniques (principal components, varimax rotation) to investigate combinations of all symptoms in the Symptom Distress Scale and combinations of serious symptoms. RESULTS: Fatigue, disruptions in outlook, frequent pain, and difficulties in sleeping were rated the most distressing and were the most prevalent serious disruptions. A four-factor solution for the symptom distress ratings explained 63.3% of the variance and revealed groups of items representing emotional and physical suffering, gastrointestinal distress, respiratory distress, and malaise. Symptoms with a rating of serious distress were represented by five factors with emotional and physical suffering as separate factors. Symptoms were significantly related to Karnofsky Performance Status. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple symptoms formed distinct congregations of distress. Symptom control requires consideration as a multivariate approach.
Authors: Amy J Hoffman; Alexander von Eye; Audrey G Gift; Barbara A Given; Charles W Given; Marilyn Rothert Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 2011 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.592
Authors: Richard A Mularski; Sydney M Dy; Lisa R Shugarman; Anne M Wilkinson; Joanne Lynn; Paul G Shekelle; Sally C Morton; Virginia C Sun; Ronda G Hughes; Lara K Hilton; Margaret Maglione; Shannon L Rhodes; Cony Rolon; Karl A Lorenz Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Marie Flannery; Karen F Stein; David W Dougherty; Supriya Mohile; Joseph Guido; Nancy Wells Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Susan Yount; Jennifer Beaumont; Sarah Rosenbloom; David Cella; Jyoti Patel; Thomas Hensing; Paul B Jacobsen; Karen Syrjala; Amy P Abernethy Journal: Clin Lung Cancer Date: 2011-05-23 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: Jacquelyn Russell; Melisa L Wong; Lynda Mackin; Steven M Paul; Bruce A Cooper; Marilyn Hammer; Yvette P Conley; Fay Wright; Jon D Levine; Christine Miaskowski Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Nalaka S Gooneratne; Grace E Dean; Ann E Rogers; J Emeka Nkwuo; James C Coyne; Larry R Kaiser Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2007-08-31 Impact factor: 5.705