CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 119Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesCancer survivorship and carePalliative and Oncologic Care

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Caring for women with ovarian cancer in the last year of life: A longitudinal study of caregiver quality of life, distress and unmet needs

Open access
Butow, Phyllis N., The Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group, Price, Melanie A., Bell, Melanie L., Webb, Penelope M., deFazio, Anna, The Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Quality of Life Study Investigators, Friedlander, Michael·2014·Gynecologic Oncology
DOI 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.01.002
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Purpose Caregiver burden, quality of life (QOL) and unmet needs are poorly understood, particularly at the end of life. We explored these issues in caregivers of women with ovarian cancer. Patients and methods The Australian Ovarian Cancer Study (AOCS) is a prospective population-based study of women newly diagnosed with primary epithelial ovarian cancer. Ninety-nine caregivers of women participating in the AOCS QOL sub-study (88% response rate) rated their QOL (SF-12), psychological distress (HADS), optimism (LOT), social support (Duke) and unmet needs (SCNS-carers), and patients rated their QOL (FACT-O), every three months for two years. This analysis included measurements in the patient's last year of life. Results Caregivers had significantly lower mental and physical QOL than population norms (p<0.01). Mean distress (p=0.01) and unmet needs increased over time, however social support remained constant. In linear mixed models, (using scores for each psychosocial variable over time), optimism (p<0.0001), social support (p<0.0001), higher unmet needs (p=0.008), physical wellbeing (p<0.0001), and time to death (p<0.0001) but not patient QOL, predicted caregiver mental well-being and distress. Highest unmet needs in the last 6months related to managing emotions about prognosis, fear of cancer spread, balancing one's own and the patient's needs, impact of caring on work and making decisions in the context of uncertainty. Conclusions Aspects of caregiver functioning, rather than patient quality of life, predict caregiver quality of life and distress. Caregivers need help with managing emotions about prognosis, balancing their own and the patient's needs, work, and decision-making when there is uncertainty.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.01.002

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Price, 2010, The Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group, The Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group — Quality of Life Study Investigators. Prevalence and predictors of anxiety and depression in women with invasive ovarian cancer and their carers, Med J Aust, 193

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 119

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Butow, P. N., The Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group, Price, M. A., Bell, M. L., Webb, P. M., deFazio, A., The Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Quality of Life Study Investigators, & Friedlander, M.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Butow, Phyllis N.
ORCID
Venue
Gynecologic Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-03
Volume
132
Issue
3
Pages
690-697
ISSN
0090-8258 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.01.002
OpenAlex
W1991232779
Cited by
119
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2
FWCI
10.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Gynecologic Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The Sydney eScholarship Repository (The University of Sydney) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Sydney
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (199600, 400281, 211199, 400413)
  • Cancer Council NSW
  • Medical Research and Materiel Command (DAMD17-01–1-0729)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
Keywords
caregiver quality of life, caregiver distress, unmet needs, ovarian cancer, end-of-life care, family caregivers, psychological distress, social support, optimism, time to death, decision making under uncertainty, work-family balance
MeSH terms
Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial, Adult, Aged, Australia, Female, Health Services Needs and Demand, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Glandular and Epithelial, Ovarian Neoplasms, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Terminal Care, Caregivers, Needs Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review