IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v21y2012i13-14p1906-1912.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of health‐related quality of life between subjects treated with radical prostatectomy and brachytherapy

Author

Listed:
  • Yu‐Hua Lin
  • Victor Chia‐Hsiang Lin
  • Tsan‐Jung Yu
  • Hua‐Pin Wang
  • Kevin Lu

Abstract

Aims and objectives. To evaluate the symptoms and self‐assessment of quality of life in men with localised prostate cancer after having had a radical prostatectomy or brachytherapy treatment. Background. Prostate cancer is a significant growing disease among men in Taiwan. Quality of life issues for the men who are living with this disease and the consequences of treatment. Design. A postal questionnaire survey. Methods. The study population came from one 1170‐bed hospital in Kaohsiung County, Taiwan. Data was collected from 20 August 2007–20 November 2009. Seventy‐eight men met the inclusion criteria. The researchers mailed a survey to each participant, which they completed at home and returned in a pre‐stamped, addressed envelope. Sixty‐four subjects participated and self‐reported using a structured questionnaire. The reliability of overall prostate cancer index was 0·90 and 0·85, 0·93 and 0·72 for each subscale, respectively. Results. The results indicate that the number of months post‐treatment was positively correlated with urinary function and age was negatively correlated with sexual, bowel function and bowel bothers. One predictor (month post‐treatment) was related to urinary function; one predictor (treatment method) was related to bowel function and four predictors (marital status, age, treatment method and month post‐treatment) were related to sexual function. Findings showed that patients who received brachytherapy have better urinary functions, as compared with prostatectomy patients. Conclusion. Study findings suggest that healthcare providers should have a better understanding of patients’ complications after treatment and this can ultimately raise the quality of life for prostate cancer patients. Relevance to clinical practice. The impact of quality of life among post prostate cancer treatment is common. Urological nurses should therefore take the responsibility regarding the consequence of urinary incontinence and sexual function and seeking appropriate nursing interventions for these complications.

Suggested Citation

  • Yu‐Hua Lin & Victor Chia‐Hsiang Lin & Tsan‐Jung Yu & Hua‐Pin Wang & Kevin Lu, 2012. "Comparison of health‐related quality of life between subjects treated with radical prostatectomy and brachytherapy," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(13-14), pages 1906-1912, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:21:y:2012:i:13-14:p:1906-1912
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03928.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03928.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03928.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ching‐Hui Chien & Cheng‐Keng Chuang & Kuan‐Lin Liu & Chia‐Lin Li & Hsueh‐Erh Liu, 2014. "Changes in decisional conflict and decisional regret in patients with localised prostate cancer," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(13-14), pages 1959-1969, July.
    2. Hui‐Chi Li & Kuei‐Min Chen & Yu‐Hua Lin & Tai‐Been Chen, 2015. "Lower urinary tract symptoms of prostate cancer patients undergoing treatments over eight‐month follow‐up," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(15-16), pages 2239-2246, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:21:y:2012:i:13-14:p:1906-1912. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.