No abstract

Purpose Understanding the quality of life (QoL) of cancer survivors is relevant to both clinical practice and health care policy. The current study compared the QoL profile in this specific population with that of a normative sample for the general population, as well as with those of both healthy and oncological patients normative sub-samples. In addition, associations between the obtained QoL profile and the main socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of the sample were examined. Methods Three hundred and ninety-two adult long-term cancer survivors (i.e., people 5 + years from their cancer diagnosis who were free from it and its treatments) were enrolled during follow-up visits and compiled the Short Form 36 Health Survey. Results In comparison with the normative data for the adult general population, the present sample showed lower scores in Physical functioning, Role-physical limitation, and Roleemotional limitations (all differences were both statistically and clinically significant); the difference in Vitality was only statistically significant. In all eight SF-36 scales, scores of the present sample were clinically and statistically lower than those of the normative healthy subsample, whereas they were statistically and clinically higher than those of normative subsample which had experienced cancer, except for Rolephysical limitation. The QoL profile was associated with gender (p = 0.002), age (p = 0.001), education (p < 0.001), occupational status (p < 0.001), and the presence of other health issues (p < 0.001). Conclusion These data support the utility of rehabilitative programs which integrate both healthcare and social interventions. In addition, they encourage the monitoring of the health status of this specific population, within a broad frame which simultaneously takes into consideration health and QoL.

Introduction The well‐being and quality of life (QoL) of long‐term cancer survivors may be affected, both positively and negatively, by psychosocial factors related to the experience of being a cancer patient. We investigated whether, in long‐term cancer survivors, the psychosocial impacts of cancer associate with socio‐demographic–clinical variables; whether, within the positive and negative dimensions taken separately, some impacts are more intense than others; and whether these impacts explain QoL. Methods Italian long‐term cancer survivors (n = 500) completed the Impact of Cancer (IOC‐V2) and Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF‐36) questionnaires. Results The IOC‐V2 negative impact score associated with gender, education, occupational status and health issues, whereas no association was found between the positive impact score and socio‐demographic–clinical variables. Of the positive impacts, Altruism/Empathy was the highest (p < 0.001); Positive self‐evaluation was higher than Health awareness (p = 0.001); and Meaning of cancer was the lowest (p < 0.001). Among the negative impacts, Worry was the highest (p < 0.001), whereas Body changes concerns was higher than both Appearance concerns (p < 0.001) and Life Interferences (p < 0.001). The assessed impacts explained more than 25% of the variance of both physical and mental functioning scores. Conclusions The provided data document psychosocial factors affecting QoL in Italian long‐term cancer survivors.

In cancer patients, depression causes suffering during the whole disease trajectory and it also influences the personal perception of well-being as well as treatment adherence. Consequently, its better definition is needed for planning more tailored supportive programmes. This study was aimed to provide information on depressive state intensity and prevalence in an heterogeneous sample of cancer inpatients. In addition, associations were studied between depressive state and different socio-demographic and clinical factors. A total of 1,147 consecutive adult cancer inpatients completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Scale on Depression together with a form for collecting socio-demographic and clinical data. The mean score of depression was 16.9 (SD = 9.3). There were differences in depression intensity associated with gender (p < .001), age (p = .001) and cancer type (p < .001), but not with education level (p = .282) or marital status (p = .436). Of the entire sample 13.9% had depressive states; this percentage raised to 26.2% if a less stringent criterion was used. These data reinforce the importance of a clinical and research focus on depression in oncology. As differences according to gender, age and diagnosis exist in depression prevalence and intensity, tailored supportive intervention should be planned and verified for effectiveness and efficacy.

Psychological distress includes all negative subjective experiences elicited by a disease and its treatments. Since psychological distress in oncology is associated with negative outcomes, its detection and description are helpful for designing tailored supportive interventions. This study used the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) to assess the intensity and prevalence of psychological distress (i.e., anxiety and depression) in cancer inpatients and examined the relationships between these variables and sociodemographic and clinical factors. An existing dataset of HADS results, from 2021 consecutive adult cancer inpatients at a single hospital, was analyzed. Only those questionnaires with complete responses were used. The intensity of anxiety and depression was determined from HADS sub-scores. The prevalence of anxiety and depression was calculated using, as case-finding criteria, cut-offs of ≥ 10 and ≥ 8, respectively. The mean HADS scores describing intensity were 7.3 for anxiety (n = 1,990) and 5.8 (n = 1,970) for depression. The prevalence rates for anxiety and depression were 26.6 and 28.6%, respectively. Among the 1,916 patients who completed both subscales, 17.2% had both anxiety and depression, 21.0% had either anxiety or depression, and 61.7% had neither. Gender, age, occupational status, and cancer diagnosis were associated with anxiety intensity or prevalence, while age, occupational status, and cancer diagnosis were associated with depression intensity or prevalence. Anxiety intensity was affected by the interaction effect between gender and diagnosis. Our study showed anxiety and depression being distinct entities, with more intense anxiety overall. From a research perspective, it reaffirms the usefulness for assessing both intensity and prevalence concurrently to gain a more detailed description of anxiety and depression.