PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Elise L Lev

Publications and source records attributed to Elise L Lev.

4 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2007

Exploratory factor analysis: strategies used by patients to promote health.

Strategies used by patients to promote health (SUPPH) was used to measure self-care self-efficacy in patients with cancer. The objectives of this study were (1) to determine the extent to which self-efficacy theory explained the factor structure of the SUPPH and (2) to determine the relationship of demographic data with factors of the SUPPH. Subjects were diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) and treated with either: (a) radical prostatectomy, (b) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) + radioactive seed implantation, or (c) IMRT + high dose rate. Subjects completed a demographic questionnaire and the SUPPH. Exploratory factor analysis of the SUPPH was performed using a varimax rotation. Subjects (n = 265) were predominately white and averaged 68 years of age. The model explained 81.3% of the total sum of eigenvalues. Two factors of the SUPPH were identified: physiological efficacy information and performance efficacy information. Younger subjects who were fully employed and earning more money had significantly higher performance self-efficacy than older subjects who were working part time and earning less money. Results are congruent with Bandura's (1997) description of self-efficacy. Use of the SUPPH may facilitate research validating Bandura's (1997) assertion that an individual's self-efficacy is related to quality of life (QOL) during chronic illness. Additional research focusing on self-efficacy and PCa patients' QOL may lead to efficacy enhancing interventions that will improve QOL of patients with PCa.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Quality of life of men treated with brachytherapies for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Most studies of men undergoing treatment for prostate cancer examine physical symptoms as predictors of Quality of Life (QOL). However, symptoms vary by treatment modality in this population, and psychosocial variables, shown to be important to QOL, have rarely been examined. Litwin noted a need for analysis of QOL data in men treated for prostate cancer with different modes of therapy, as studies focusing on specific treatments will increase the homogeneity of research findings. METHODS: This cross-sectional study explored physical and psychosocial predictors of QOL in men receiving one of two types of radiation treatment for prostate cancer: Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) + High Dose Rate (HDR) Brachytherapy or IMRT + seed implantation. Subjects completed a biographic questionnaire; quality of life measures, which were the eight subscales of the Medical Outcome Study Short Form Health Survey (SF-36); measures of physical symptoms including the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (RTOG/EORTC) and the Prostate Symptom Self-Report (PSSR); and measures of psychological factors, the Ways of Coping Scale (WOC), Perceived Stress Scale, the Anxiety Subscale of the SCL-90, and Strategies Used by Patients to Promote Health (SUPPH). Eight regression models including both physical and psychosocial variables were used to predict quality of life. RESULTS: Sixty-three subjects with complete data on all variables were studied. Treatment effect sizes were medium to large in predicting each of the quality of life subscales of the SF-36. Psychosocial variables were related to physical function, role function, bodily pain, general health, social function, emotional role, and mental health. Physical symptoms were related to subjects' perceived general health and mental health. DISCUSSION: The number of significant relationships among psychosocial variables and indicators of QOL exceeded the number of relationships among symptoms and QOL suggesting that psychosocial variables associate strongly with prostate cancer patients' reports of quality of life. Findings of the study may provide patients and families with knowledge that contributes to their understanding of quality of life outcomes of IMRT+ HDR and IMRT + seed implantation and their ability to make more informed treatment choices.

Adaptation, Psychological↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Prospective study of quality of life of patients receiving treatment for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: No research was found that compared quality of life (QOL) outcomes of prostate cancer patients receiving intensity-modulated radiation therapies with prostate cancer patients receiving radical prostatectomy. OBJECTIVES: To (a) describe differences in QOL before and after three types of treatment for prostate cancer: radical prostatectomy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy + seed implantation (permanent brachytherapy), or intensity-modulated radiation therapy + high dose rate radiotherapy (temporary brachytherapy); and (b) investigate demographic, physical, and psychosocial variables that impact QOL of men with prostate cancer. METHODS: Data were collected on three occasions: baseline (prior to treatment), 1 month, and 3 months after beginning treatment. Measures included biographic data, physiological, and psychological measures. Analysis of variance and hierarchical regression were used to examine patterns, describe differences, and identify predictors of QOL in the three treatment groups. QOL was conceptualized as a multidimensional construct that included physical, psychological, social, and functional well-being and prostate cancer concerns. RESULTS: Groups differed significantly in bowel and urinary symptom scores and prostate cancer concerns at baseline, and in urinary and depressive symptoms at 3 months. There were no significant group differences at 1 month. DISCUSSION: Significant differences were found in QOL as measured with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment-Prostate after treatment with radical prostatectomy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy + seed implantation, or intensity-modulated radiation therapy + high dose rate radiotherapy. Findings may provide healthcare providers with knowledge about treatment sequelae for prostate cancer, enable healthcare providers to educate patients about QOL outcomes of treatment for prostate cancer, and enable patients to make more informed treatment decisions.

Adult↗