The association between having assistive devices and activities of daily living ability and health‐related quality of life: An exploratory cross‐sectional study among people with advanced cancer

Abstract

Objective To explore whether people with advanced cancer who had assistive devices had higher or lower ADL ability and/or HRQoL than people with advanced cancer who did not have assistive devices. Methods A cross‐sectional study of 164 participants with advanced cancer. Self‐reported ADL ability and HRQoL were assessed using the ADL—Interview and the EORTC QLQ‐C30. Data regarding assistive devices were collected using a study‐specific questionnaire. Data were analysed using multiple linear regression. The regression coefficients (B) were presented in crude form and adjusted for potential confounding variables (age, gender, cohabiting, receiving help, physical functioning, fatigue and pain). p‐Values (p) < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results Having assistive devices was associated with lower ADL ability (B = −0.923, p = <0.0001), but this association was not significant after adjustment where it was found that physical functioning was a confounder positively associated with ADL ability (B = 0.030, p = <0.0001). No significant association was found between having assistive devices and HRQoL. Both fatigue (B = −0.336, p = <0.0001) and pain (B = −0.124, p = 0.010) were negatively associated with HRQoL. Conclusion The participants had the same ADL ability and HRQoL regardless of them having assistive devices. Interventions addressing physical functioning or fatigue and pain might contribute to enhancing ADL ability and HRQoL among people with advanced cancer.

Assistive devices among people living at home with advanced cancer: Use, non‐use and who have unmet needs for assistive devices?

“…The prevalence of possession of assistive devices was higher than what was found in another Danish study (62.9%) including 164 people with advanced cancer (Funch et al, 2019). The study had nearly identical inclusion criteria and data collection methods and included a population similar to the present study, except that the participants in the study by Funch et al had worse physical functioning and more fatigue: 58.6 and 55.1, as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 (Funch et al, 2019), while the measures for the present study were 67 and 44, respectively. It is not clear why the prevalence of assistive device possession differed between the two studies, especially since people with worse physical functioning and fatigue could be expected to possess more assistive devices.…”

“…These methods likely enhance the probability of comprehensive recording of all assistive devices compared to participant self-report of a questionnaire. In addition, the questionnaire had been used in a former study (Funch et al, 2019) showing that most relevant assistive devices were included, strengthening the validity of the data. Still, there was a discrepancy between the present and the former study indicating that the reliability of the questionnaire should be investigated (de Vet et al, 2011).…”

“…Participants could answer in three categories: “Yes and I use it”, “Yes but I don't use it” or “No”. The checklist is validated based on a former study (Funch et al, 2019) and was pilot tested before use with only one alteration replacing the item ‘scissors or special writing pen’ with ‘pillow for positioning’. The reliability of the checklist was improved as participant self‐report was confirmed with observation of the home environment (data triangulation).…”

“…Further, assistive devices are recommended to enable everyday activities among people with advanced cancer and to improve their health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) (Montagnini et al, 2020; White, 2016). A study among Danish adults with advanced cancer ( N = 169) showed that 62.9% of all participants had one or more assistive devices (Funch et al, 2019). The most frequent types of assistive devices were ‘daily living’ devices, such as raised toilet seats, reachers, activity chairs or devices for eating and drinking (56.6%), and mobility devices, e.g., rollators or wheelchairs (37.1%) (Funch et al, 2019).…”

“…A study among Danish adults with advanced cancer ( N = 169) showed that 62.9% of all participants had one or more assistive devices (Funch et al, 2019). The most frequent types of assistive devices were ‘daily living’ devices, such as raised toilet seats, reachers, activity chairs or devices for eating and drinking (56.6%), and mobility devices, e.g., rollators or wheelchairs (37.1%) (Funch et al, 2019).…”