QUALITY OF LIFE WITH MASTECTOMY FOR BREAST CANCER, IN TERMS OF PATIENTS’ RESPONSES OF SF-36 QUESTIONNAIRE

  • I. GARDIKIOTIS University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Grigore T. Popa” - Iași
  • Alina MANOLE University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Grigore T. Popa” - Iași
  • Doina AZOICAI University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Grigore T. Popa” - Iași

Abstract

The aim of the study was to describe the quality of life in female patients with mastectomy performed for breast cancer. Material and methods: The study was carried out in Iași, between October 2014 - January 2015, on a sample of 23 patients with mastectomy, using the SF-36 Questionnaire (Short Form-36) in a single visit, with direct questioning of patients; a secondary instrument was a general anamnestic questionnaire referring on age group, area of ​​residence, type of surgery, associated diseases, family history, psycho-emotional traumas. Results: The overall profile of the studied case was: woman of 40-49 years (47.8%), from urban area (82.6%), with a family history of neoplastic pathology (43.5%), with psycho-emotional traumas (73.9%) and a self-estimated general health as “moderate” (26.1%), with “a lot of energy” only “some of the time” (43.5%), “feeling worn out” (43.5%), and "cutting down the amount of time spent on work or other activities” (69.6%), with “moderate” (34.8%) or even “intense” (21.7%) “bodily pain”, “some of the time” feeling “very nervous” (43.5%) and “so down in the dumps that nothing could cheer her up” (39.1%). The strongest correlation was found between the variable “cut down the amount of time spent on work and other activities” as a result of “physical health” (Role-physical items) and “limited in kind of work or other activities” (r=0.8981). Conclusions: Application of SF-36 Questionnaire in female patients with mastectomy for breast cancer highlighted that strenuous and moderate activities were limited than about half of the surveyed cases, somatic pain affecting their work and normal activities and physical and emotional health influenced the social activity of patients for more than half of the lot. It is necessary to extend the study in order to bring relevant data on the quality of life of these patients, in the social, economic and cultural center of Romania.

Author Biographies

I. GARDIKIOTIS, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Grigore T. Popa” - Iași

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Preventive Medicine and Interdisciplinarity

Alina MANOLE, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Grigore T. Popa” - Iași

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Preventive Medicine and Interdisciplinarity

Doina AZOICAI, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Grigore T. Popa” - Iași

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Preventive Medicine and Interdisciplinarity

References

1. Helliwell JF, Layard R, Sachs J. (eds.). World Happiness Report 2013. New York: UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 2014.
2. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. First European Quality of Life Survey. Participation in civil society Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006.
3. Eurofound. Third European Quality of Life Survey - Quality of life in Europe: Impacts of the crisis. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2012.
4. Lupu I. Calitatea vieţii în sănătate. Definiţii şi instrumente de evaluare. Calitatea vieţii 2006; XVII, 1–2: 73–91.
5. Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, Rosso S, Coebergh JWW, Comber H, Forman D, Bray F. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 2013; 49(6): 1374-403.
6. National Cancer Institute. Cancer of the Breast. Available: http://seer.cancer.gov [Accessed on 28.02.2015].
7. Mihăilă V, Enăchescu D, Bădulescu M. General population norms for Romania using the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36). QoL Newsletter 2001; 26: 17-19.
8. Montazeri A. Health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients: A bibliographic review of the literature from 1974 to 2007. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2008; 27(1): 32.
9. Montazeri A, Gillis CR, McEwen J. Measuring quality of life in oncology: is it worthwhile? Part I. Meaning, purposes, and controversies. Eur J Cancer Care 1996; 5: 159–167.
10. Montazeri A, Gillis CR, McEwen J. Measuring quality of life in oncology: is it worthwhile? Part II. Experiences from the treatment of cancer. Eur J Cancer Care 1996; 5: 168–175.
11. Forman D, Bray F, Brewster DH, Gombe Mbalawa C, Kohler B, Piñeros M, Steliarova-Foucher E, Swaminathan R, Ferlay J (eds.). Cancer Incidence in Five Continents. Vol. X (electronic version). Lyon, IARC, 2013. http://ci5.iarc.fr last [Accessed on 03.03.2015].
Published
2015-06-30
Section
PREVENTIVE MEDICINE - LABORATORY