Cited by 70Sleep and related disordersCancer survivorship and careSleep and Work-Related Fatigue

Differences in sleep disturbance parameters between oncology outpatients and their family caregivers

Open access
Carney, Sara, Koetters, Theresa, Cho, Maria, West, Claudia, Paul, Steven M., Dunn, Laura, Aouizerat, Bradley E., Dodd, Marylin +5 more·2011·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study compared the occurrence rates for and severity ratings of sleep disturbance in patient-family caregiver (FC) dyads. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In total, 102 dyads were recruited from two radiation therapy (RT) departments. Patients and their FCs completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and the General Sleep Disturbance Scale (GSDS) and wore wrist actigraphs to obtain subjective and objective measures of the occurrence and severity of sleep disturbance at the initiation of RT. Match paired t tests were used to evaluate for dyadic differences. RESULTS: No differences were found in the occurrence of clinically significant levels of sleep disturbance between patients and their FCs that ranged between 40% and 50% using subjective and objective measures. Few differences were found in the severity of any of the sleep-wake parameters between patients and FCs using both the subjective and objective measures of sleep disturbance. CONCLUSION: The findings from this study suggest that patients with cancer and their FCs experience similar levels of sleep disturbance and that both groups could benefit from interventions that aim to promote restful sleep. In addition to routine and systematic assessment of sleep disturbance by oncology clinicians, interventions are needed that take into account the specific needs of the patient and the FC as well as the potential for partners' sleep patterns to influence one another.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2010.30.9104

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 40 · Cited by 70

Authors
Carney, S., Koetters, T., Cho, M., West, C., Paul, S. M., Dunn, L., Aouizerat, B. E., Dodd, M., Cooper, B., Lee, K., Wara, W., Swift, P., & Miaskowski, C.
Affiliations
Kaiser Permanente (US)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2011-03-10
Volume
29
Issue
8
Pages
1001-1006
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2090479530
Cited by
70
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 9
FWCI
12.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (R01NR004835, NR04835)
  • National Center for Research Resources (KL2 RR624130)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Keywords
sleep disorders, cancer patients, family caregivers, radiotherapy, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, actigraphy, sleep-wake patterns
MeSH terms
Aged, Ambulatory Care, California, Family Relations, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Surveys and Questionnaires, Severity of Illness Index, Sleep, Sleep Wake Disorders, Caregivers, Cost of Illness, Actigraphy

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