PubMed · 11066980
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
L J Neal. 2000. OASIS inter-rater reliability.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11066980/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of coordinated care for chronic respiratory disease. DESIGN AND SETTING: Community-based geographical control study, in western (intervention) and northern (comparison) metropolitan Adelaide (SA). PARTICIPANTS: 377 adults (223 intervention; 154 comparison) with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma or other chronic respiratory condition, July 1997 to December 1999. INTERVENTION: Coordinated care (includes care coordinator, care guidelines, service coordinator and care mentor). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital admissions (any, unplanned and respiratory), functionality (activities of daily living) and quality of life (SF-36 and Dartmouth COOP). RESULTS: At entry to the study, intervention and comparison subjects were dissimilar. The intervention group was 10 years older (P < 0.001), less likely to smoke (P = 0.014), had higher rates of hospitalisation in the previous 12 months (P < 0.001) and had worse self-reported quality of life (SF-36 physical component summary score [P < 0.001] and four of nine COOP domains [P = 0.002-0.013]). After adjustment for relevant baseline characteristics, coordinated care was not associated with any difference in hospitalisation, but was associated with some improvements in quality of life (SF-36 mental component summary score [P = 0.023] and three of nine COOP domains [P = 0.008-0.031]) compared with the comparison group. CONCLUSIONS: Coordinated care given to patients with chronic respiratory disease did not affect hospitalisation, but it was associated with an improvement in some quality-of-life measures.
BACKGROUND: Previous research indicates that disease free breast carcinoma survivors who experienced severe fatigue also had many problems with regard to neuropsychological functioning and physical activity, measured with general self-report questionnaires. Both neuropsychological functioning and physical activity can be measured with daily self-report measures in addition to measures of objective behavior. The main objective of this study was to examine the relations between 1) fatigue and 2) daily self-reported and objective measures of neuropsychological functioning and physical activity. METHODS: Disease free breast carcinoma survivors and age-matched women with no history of breast carcinoma filled out a daily self-observation list and wore an actometer during a period of 12 days. Furthermore, they performed two standardized tests to assess neuropsychological functioning. RESULTS: No differences were found between severely fatigued disease free breast carcinoma survivors, nonseverely fatigued disease free breast carcinoma survivors, and women in a control group with regard to daily self-reported and objective physical activity. The severely fatigued disease free patients reported more impairment in neuropsychological functioning on daily questionnaires compared with nonseverely fatigued disease free patients and women in the control group. However, no differences were found between these three groups on a standardized concentration task. On a standardized reaction time task, no significant differences were found between the two groups of disease free breast carcinoma survivors: However, women in the severely fatigued group had a significantly longer reaction time compared with women in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Fatigue is correlated strongly with daily self-reported neuropsychological functioning, but not with objective neuropsychological functioning, in a laboratory setting. In the current study, fatigue was not correlated with daily self-reported and objective physical activity.
PURPOSE: Because survival in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is limited, pain control and quality of life (QOL) are important parameters. The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence of posttreatment pain and QOL of patients with LRRC treated with nonsurgical palliation or resection and identify predictors of poor outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Posttreatment pain severity and QOL were prospectively assessed in 45 patients with LRRC using the Brief Pain Inventory and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal questionnaire. RESULTS: Fifteen patients received nonsurgical palliation, and 30 patients underwent resection of their pelvic tumors. There was a significant association between higher posttreatment pain scores and worse QOL (P <.001). Patients treated with nonsurgical palliation reported moderate to severe pain beyond the third month of treatment. Resected patients reported comparable levels of pain during the first 3 postoperative years, particularly after bony resections; long-term survivors (beyond 3 years), however, reported minimal pain and good QOL. Female sex, pelvic/sciatic pain at presentation, total pelvic exenteration, and bony resection were associated with higher rates of moderate to severe posttreatment pain (P =.04, P <.001, P =.04, and P =.02, respectively). Pain at presentation was an independent predictor of posttreatment pain (odds ratio, 7.4 [95% confidence interval, 1.8 to 30.3]; P =.006). CONCLUSION: Patients with LRRC treated with nonsurgical palliation or resection experience significant levels of pain after treatment. Close posttreatment pain monitoring is warranted in patients presenting with pelvic pain, and more aggressive pain management strategies may improve posttreatment QOL.