A Cumulative Illness Rating Scale, designed to meet the need for a brief, comprehensive and reliable instrument for assessing physical impairment, has been developed and tested. The scale format provides for 13 relatively independent areas grouped under body systems. Ratings are made on a 5‐point “degree of severity” scale, ranging from “none” to “extremely severe.” Findings, in terms of reliability and validity, reflect statistical significance at the P < .01 level. As a rapid assessment technique which is objective and easily quantified, the scale is well suited to a variety of research uses.

From a prospective study of the impact of stress on health in 300 men assessed every six months, men who became unemployed after entering the study were compared with an equal number, matched for age and race, who continued to work. Psychological and health data after unemployment were compared between the two groups by multivariate analysis of variance and covariance. After unemployment, symptoms of somatization, depression, and anxiety were significantly greater in the unemployed than employed. Large standard deviations on self-esteem scores in the unemployed

Much has been written about working with the dying. Few, if any, controlled studies have examined the application of principles set forth. The authors evaluate the effectiveness of working with dying cancer patients by assessing changes in quality of life, physical functioning, and survival. One-hundred twenty men with end-stage cancer were randomly assigned to experimental or control groups; the 62 experimental group patients were seen regularly by a counselor. Patients were assessed before random assignment and at one, three, six, nine, and 12 months on quality of live and functional status. Experimental group patients improved significantly more than the control group on quality of life within three months. Functional status and survival did not differ between groups. A subsample of lung cancer patients provided cross-validation of findings. Although survival was not expected to differ, it was predicted that functioning would be enhanced if quality of life improved. One interpretation is that little can be done to alter physical function and survival when intervention occurs late in the progression of a fatal disease. This in no way reduces the value of improving overall quality of life, since enhancing the quality of survival for end-stage cancer patients is a high priority medical goal.