Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 278

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Subgroups of Patients With Cancer With Different Symptom Experiences and Quality-of-Life Outcomes: A Cluster Analysis

Miaskowski, Christine, Cooper, Bruce A., Paul, Steven M., Dodd, Marylin, Lee, Kathryn, Aouizerat, Bradley E., West, Claudia, Cho, Maria, Bank, Alice·2006·Oncology Nursing Forum

Abstract

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To identify subgroups of outpatients with cancer based on their experiences with the symptoms of fatigue, sleep disturbance, depression, and pain; to explore whether patients in the subgroups differed on selected demographic, disease, and treatment characteristics; and to determine whether patients in the subgroups differed on two important patient outcomes: functional status and quality of life (QOL). DESIGN: Descriptive, correlational study. SETTING: Four outpatient oncology practices in northern California. SAMPLE: 191 outpatients with cancer receiving active treatment. METHODS: Patients completed a demographic questionnaire, Karnofsky Performance Status scale, Lee Fatigue Scale, General Sleep Disturbance Scale, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, Multidimensional Quality-of-Life Scale Cancer, and a numeric rating scale of worst pain intensity. Medical records were reviewed for disease and treatment information. Cluster analysis was used to identify patient subgroups based on patients symptom experiences. Differences in demographic, disease, and treatment characteristics as well as in outcomes were evaluated using analysis of variance and chi square analysis. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Subgroup membership, fatigue, sleep disturbance, depression, pain, functional status, and QOL. FINDINGS: Four relatively distinct patient subgroups were identified based on patients experiences with four highly prevalent and related symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The subgroup of patients who reported low levels of all four symptoms reported the best functional status and QOL. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: The findings from this study need to be replicated before definitive clinical practice recommendations can be made. Until that time, clinicians need to assess patients for the occurrence of multiple symptoms that may place them at increased risk for poorer outcomes.

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 · 10.1188/06.onf.e79-e89

Cites

3 of 3 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

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

Cited by

See all 278

Metadata

Authors
Miaskowski, C., Cooper, B. A., Paul, S. M., Dodd, M., Lee, K., Aouizerat, B. E., West, C., Cho, M., & Bank, A.
Venue
Oncology Nursing Forum
Published
2006-01-01
Volume
33
Issue
5
Pages
E79-E89
ISSN
  • 0190-535X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-0688
OpenAlex
W2061847443
Cited by
278
References
3
FWCI
5.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.