2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2006.05.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Patients experience with long-term percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding following primary surgery for oral and oropharyngeal cancer

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
77
2
2

Year Published

2008
2008
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 85 publications
(88 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
2
77
2
2
Order By: Relevance
“…12 As Weymuller and Bhama and others have pointed out, in present HNC research there is very little information on the impact of interventions on the patient's functioning in life, e.g., through pain regimens, benefit of tracheotomy or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes, and palliative radio-or chemotherapy. 13,14 This also shows how difficult it is presently to draw practical and clinically relevant conclusions out of different studies that assess functioning in the field of head and neck cancer. Also, reporting methods differ according to the need of the end user, e.g., different clinicians, regulators, or sponsors, and they apply different foci, methods, and study endpoints.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…12 As Weymuller and Bhama and others have pointed out, in present HNC research there is very little information on the impact of interventions on the patient's functioning in life, e.g., through pain regimens, benefit of tracheotomy or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes, and palliative radio-or chemotherapy. 13,14 This also shows how difficult it is presently to draw practical and clinically relevant conclusions out of different studies that assess functioning in the field of head and neck cancer. Also, reporting methods differ according to the need of the end user, e.g., different clinicians, regulators, or sponsors, and they apply different foci, methods, and study endpoints.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clinical outcome measures on head and neck cancer have concentrated more on pathophysiologic and anatomical changes, and less on patients' functioning in everyday life situations (eg, communication, going shopping, personal hygiene, preparing meals, and social life), and the patient's relatedness on the environment (types of food to be eaten, products for assistance in daily living such as canula, interdependencies with family, friends and strangers, job, and financial background). [20][21][22] What was mentioned by Stucki et al in relation to rehabilitation in general seems to also apply to head and neck cancer in particular, namely, it might be worthwhile, stepping back and discussing whether a widening of our focus toward areas of patient activity, participation, and contextual environmental factors might increase patient benefit. 23,24 There is a large number of ICF categories addressed in less than 10% of the publications.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…10 Currently, an understanding of HRQoL in gastrostomy patients has been focused on patients with cancer [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] , despite most gastrostomy insertions occurring in non-cancer individuals. [19][20][21] The influence 6 gastrostomies have on caregivers is also poorly appreciated.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%