KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology / 2021 / Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 4

Turkish Validation and Reliability of the EORTC QLQ-CR29 Quality of Life Scale for Colorectal Cancer

Funda AKDURAN
Zehra DURNA
Sayfa
357–364
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Keywords: Colorectal cancer, quality of life, nursing, adaptation to disease

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Background: This study aims to test the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life Questionnaire-Colorectal Cancer Scale, and to evaluate the relationship between the factors affecting the quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Methods: 117 patients diagnosed with CRC and treated at the Training and Research Hospital were included.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Keywords: Colorectal cancer, quality of life, nursing, adaptation to disease
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Background: This study aims to test the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life Questionnaire-Colorectal Cancer Scale, and to evaluate the relationship between the factors affecting the quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: 117 patients diagnosed with CRC and treated at the Training and Research Hospital were included. A Personal Information Form, questionnaires on the Quality of Life in Cancer Patients, Quality of Life in Patients with CRC, and the Adaptation Scale for Individuals with Ostomy were used. Results: The validity and reliability of the KKHYK scale were found significant (P < .05). From the demographic data of the patients, the differences between 3 sub-dimensions, grouping according to gender, and 2 sub-dimensions were statistically significant. In the characteristics related to the disease, the differences between the groups were significant; for one for the diagnosis time of the disease, 2 dimensions in the adaptation parameter (P < .05). Conclusion: The Turkish version of the scale is a measurement tool with validity and reliability indicators to measure the quality of life of patients with CRC. It was concluded that patients did not have sufficient knowledge about their disease, and that this increased the burden of nursing care. Keywords: Colorectal cancer, quality of life, nursing, adaptation to disease

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

AKDURAN, F., DURNA, Z. (2021). Turkish Validation and Reliability of the EORTC QLQ-CR29 Quality of Life Scale for Colorectal Cancer. Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology, Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 4, 357–364. https://ajindex.com/articles/410034

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (15)

  1. Lorenz R, Julie R, Goodman E, Prueitt RL. The weight of evidence does not support the listing of styrene as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen” in NTP’s twelfth report on carcinogens. Hum Ecol Risk Assess Int J. 2013
  2. 19(1):4-27. [CrossRef] 2. Hansson SO. Choosing priority-setting criteria for carcinogens. Hum Ecol Risk Assess Int J. 2001
  3. 7(3):475-491. [CrossRef]. 3. Allen BC, Crump KS, Shipp AM. Correlation between carcinogenic potency of chemicals in animals and humans. Risk Anal. 1988
  4. 8(4):531-544. [CrossRef]. 4. Sheweita AS. Carcinogen-metabolizing enzymes and insecticides. J Environ Sci Health B Pestic Food Contam Agric Wastes. 2004
  5. [CrossRef] 5. Hadfield MG. Is silicon a human carcinogen? J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev. 1988
  6. 16(2):123-134, [CrossRef]. 6. Martin TJ, Peer CJ, Figg WD. Uncovering the genetic landscape driving castration-resistant prostate cancer. Cancer Biol Ther. 2013
  7. 14(5):399-400, [CrossRef]. 7. Wang E, Uccellini L, Marincola FM. A genetic inference on cancer immune responsiveness. OncoImmunology. 2012
  8. 1(4):520-525, doi:[CrossRef]. 8. Ribarska T, Goering W, Droop J et al. Deregulation of an imprinted gene network in prostate cancer. Epigenetics. 2014
  9. 9(5):704-717, [CrossRef]. 9. Iversen ES, Parmigiani G, Berry DA, Schildkraut JM. Genetic susceptibility and survival: application to breast cancer. J Am Stat Assoc. 2000
  10. 95(449):28-42, [CrossRef]. 10. Rogers SN, McNally D, Mahmoud M, Chan MF, Humphris GM. Psychologic response of the edentulous patient after primary surgery for oral cancer: a cross-sectional study. J Prosthet Dent. 1999
  11. 82(3):317- 321, [CrossRef]. 11. Greenberg HS, Kazak AE, Meadows AT. Psychologic functioning in 8- to 16-year-old cancer survivors and their parents. J Pediatr. 1989
  12. 114(3):488-493, [CrossRef]. 12. Andersen BL, Yang HC, Farrar WB, et al. Psychologic intervention improves survival for breast cancer patients: a randomized clinical trial. Cancer. 2008
  13. 113(12):3450-3458. [CrossRef]. 13. Starkweather A. Psychologic and biologic factors associated with fatigue in patients with persistent radiculopathy. Pain Manag Nurs. 2013
  14. 14(1):41-49, [CrossRef]. 14. GLOBOCAN. Estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012. http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_ cancer.aspx
  15. Taştan S, Andsoy II, Iyigun E. Evaluation of the knowledge, behavior and health beliefs of individuals over 50 regarding colorectal cancer screening. Asian Pac J Cancer P