Cited by 215Cancer survivorship and careWomen's cancer prevention and managementPalliative and Oncologic Care

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mapping the quality of life and unmet needs of urban women with metastatic breast cancer

Open access
ARANDA, S., SCHOFIELD, P., WEIH, L., YATES, P., MILNE, D., FAULKNER, R., VOUDOURIS, N.·2005·European Journal of Cancer Care

Abstract

Enhancing quality of life and reducing the unmet needs of women are central to the successful management of advanced breast cancer. The objective of this study was to investigate the quality of life and support and information needs of urban women with advanced breast cancer. This study was conducted at four large urban hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. A consecutive sample of 105 women with advanced breast cancer completed a questionnaire that contained the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Q-C30 and the Supportive Care Needs Survey. Between one quarter and a third of the women reported difficulties with their physical, role and social functioning, and a little over a quarter of the women reported poor global health status. Fatigue was a problem for most women. The highest unmet needs were in the psychological and health information domains. Almost no differences in unmet needs were detected when comparing different demographic and disease characteristics of women. Health care providers should routinely monitor the quality of life and needs of women with advanced breast cancer to ensure that appropriate treatment, information or supportive services are made available.

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2005.00541.x

Cites

40 of 40 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

Show all 40 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Aranda S., 2002, A Breast Care Nurse Database Evaluation Report
  2. Bilodeau B.A., 1996, Oncology Nursing Forum, 23, 691
  3. DeVita V.T., 2001, Cancer Principles and Practice of Oncology
  4. Foot G., 1995, Cancer Forum, 19, 131
  5. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(20000101)88:1<226::AID-CNCR30>3.0.CO;2-P · DOI
  6. Stewart B.W., 2003, World Cancer Report.
  7. Zabora J., 2003, Psycho-Oncology, 12, S87

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 215

Metadata

Authors
ARANDA, S., SCHOFIELD, P., WEIH, L., YATES, P., MILNE, D., FAULKNER, R., & VOUDOURIS, N.
Affiliations
  • Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (AU)
  • Queensland University of Technology (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • La Trobe University (AU)
Corresponding author
ARANDA, S.
Venue
European Journal of Cancer Care
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-07
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
211-222
ISSN
  • 0961-5423 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2354
OpenAlex
W1536833105
Cited by
215
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 11
FWCI
3.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Cancer Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Faculty of Health; Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation
Funders
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
Keywords
metastatic breast cancer, quality of life, unmet needs, urban women, supportive care needs, health information needs, psychological needs, fatigue, physical function, social functioning, role functioning, global health status, EORTC QLQ-C30, Supportive Care Needs Survey
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Breast Neoplasms, Female, Health Services Needs and Demand, Health Status, Humans, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Metastasis, Patient Education as Topic, Pilot Projects, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Support, Urban Health, Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast, 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