Self-care Agency and Quality of Life in Brain Tumor Patients after Surgery

Sunjoo Boo

doi:10.5388/aon.2015.15.4.211

Journal List > Asian Oncol Nurs > v.15(4) > 1081846

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Boo: Self-care Agency and Quality of Life in Brain Tumor Patients after Surgery

Original Article

Asian Oncology Nursing 2015; 15(4): 211-218.

Published online: 31 December 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5388/aon.2015.15.4.211

Self-care Agency and Quality of Life in Brain Tumor Patients after Surgery

Sunjoo Boo

College of Nursing · Institute of Nursing Science, Ajou University, Suwon, Korea.

Address reprint requests to: Boo, Sunjoo. College of Nursing·Institute of Nursing Science, Ajou University, 164 Worldcup-ro, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon 16499, Korea. Tel: +82-31-219-7032, Fax: +82-31-219-7020, sjboo@ajou.ac.kr

Received 17 September 2015 Revised 8 October 2015 Accepted 20 November 2015

(open-access):

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

This study evaluated the levels of self-care agency and quality of life and identified the effect of self-care agency on quality of life in brain tumor patients who had undergone surgical resection of brain tumors.

Methods

Data were collected from 131 patients who visited an outpatient clinic for postoperative regular check-ups. Self-care agency and quality of life were assessed via self-administered questionnaires. Data were analyzed with descriptive, univariate, and hierarchical regression analyses.

Results

The average scores for self-care agency and quality of life were 4.58 (possible range: 1~6) and 3.87 (possible range: 1~5) respectively. Social and thinking functions were the lowest among quality of life sub-scales. Education level was a significant correlate of quality of life in univariate analyses but not in multivariate analysis. Self-care agency accounted for 29.0% of the total variance in quality of life, controlling for education level.

Conclusion

Approaches focusing on enhancing self-care agency could potentially improve quality of life in postoperative brain tumor patients.

Keywords: Brain Neoplasms, Craniotomy, Quality of Life, Self-care

Figures and Tables

Table 1

Characteristics of Participants (N=131)

Characteristics		n (%)
Gender	Male	43 (32.8)
Gender	Female	88 (67.2)
Age (year)	<40	44 (33.6)
	40~49	41 (31.3)
	50~59	35 (26.7)
	≥60	11 (8.4)
Marital status	Married and living together	102 (77.9)
Marital status	Else	29 (22.1)
Education	≥College	63 (48.1)
Education	≤High school	68 (51.9)
Employment	Employed	68 (51.9)
Employment	Unemployed	63 (48.1)
Income (10,000 won)	<200	30 (22.9)
	200~ < 400	31 (23.7)
	≥ 400	70 (53.4)
Smoking	Yes	12 (9.2)
Smoking	No	119 (90.8)
Diagnosis	Meningioma	70 (53.4)
	Vestibular schwannoma	25 (19.1)
	Glioma	23 (17.6)
	Else	13 (9.9)
Primary care giver	Spouse	97 (74.0)
	Parents	18 (13.7)
	Children	9 (6.9)
	Else	7 (5.4)
Hospital stay (days)	≤ 7	43 (32.8)
	8~12	46 (35.1)
	≥ 13	42 (32.1)
Complication	Yes	29 (22.1)
Complication	No	102 (77.9)

Table 2

Levels of Self-care Agency and Quality of Life (N=131)

Variables	Number of items	M±SD	F	p	Min	Max
Self-care Agency	33	4.58 ± 0.61			2.33	5.94
Quality of life	49	3.87 ± 0.66	20.16	<.001	1.45	5.00
Mobility	6	3.81 ± 0.90			1.00	5.00
Language	5	3.88 ± 0.88			1.00	5.00
Vision	3	4.14 ± 0.78			1.67	5.00
Thinking function	3	3.53 ± 0.94			1.00	5.00
Upper extremity function	5	4.15 ± 0.72			1.60	5.00
Self-care	5	4.29 ± 0.70			1.00	5.00
Energy	3	3.66 ± 0.91			1.00	5.00
Mood	5	3.87 ± 0.75			1.60	5.00
Personality	3	3.65 ± 0.83			1.33	5.00
Family function	3	3.97 ± 0.83			1.33	5.00
Social function	5	3.50 ± 0.96			1.00	5.00
Work	3	3.75 ± 0.95			1.00	5.00

Table 3

Differences in Quality of Life by Characteristics (N=131)

Characteristics	Categories	Quality of life	t or F	p
Gender	Male	3.85	- 0.27	.786
Gender	Female	3.88	- 0.27	.786
Age (year)	< 40	4.00	1.49	.220
	40~49	3.86
	50~59	3.80
	≥ 60	3.58
Marital status	Married and living together	3.89	0.50	.622
Marital status	Else	3.81	0.50	.622
Education	≥ College	4.00	2.13	.035
Education	≤ High school	3.75	2.13	.035
Employment	Employed	3.96	1.49	.140
Employment	Unemployed	3.78	1.49	.140
Income (10,000 won)	< 200	3.79	0.79	.460
	200~ < 400	3.80
	≥ 400	3.94
Smoking	Yes	3.71	0.67	.514
Smoking	No	3.89	0.67	.514
Diagnosis	Meningioma	3.83	0.23	.870
	Vestibular schwannoma	3.93
	Glioma	3.94
	Else	3.85
Primary care giver	Spouse	3.90	1.21	.310
	Parents	3.76
	Children	3.60
	Else	4.17
Hospital stay (days)	≤ 7	4.01	1.46	.236
	8~12	3.81
	≥ 13	3.80
Complication	Yes	3.75	0.99	.328
Complication	No	3.91	0.99	.328

Table 4

Correlations between Self-care Agency and Quality of Life (N =131)

Variables	1	Quality of Life (sub-scales)												14
Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1. Quality of Life (total)	1	.86	.72	.72	.68	.86	.81	.78	.84	.71	.87	.82	.86	.56
2. Mobility		1	.57	.59	.46	.84	.78	.60	.62	.51	.66	.64	.75	.46
3. Language			1	.73	.62	.55	.48	.43	.52	.43	.57	.43	.49	.41
4. Vision				1	.60	.59	.56	.47	.56	.42	.61	.40	.48	.36
5. Thinking					1	.46	.33	.55	.63	.51	.54	.46	.53	.42
6. Upper function						1	.88	.54	.65	.53	.70	.62	.72	.44
7. Self-care							1	.50	.58	.50	.70	.60	.67	.45
8. Energy								1	.73	.62	.69	.75	.67	.40
9. Mood									1	.69	.74	.70	.67	.43
10. Personality										1	.64	.57	.62	.43
11. Family function											1	.77	.75	.53
12. Social function												1	.81	.49
13. Work													1	.49
14. Self-care Agency														1

All p-values for correlation coefficients are<.001.

Table 5

Factors Affecting Quality of Life (N =131)

Variables	Model 1				Model 2				Tolerance	VIF
Variables	B	β	t	p	B	β	t	p	Tolerance	VIF
Education level: ≥ College^*	0.24	.18	2.13	.035	0.17	.13	1.75	.082	.989	1.011
Self-care agency					0.56	.54	7.35	< .001	.989	1.011
Model summary	R² = .03, F = 4.54, p = .035				R² = .32, F = 30.19, p < .001

^*Reference: ≤high school.

References

1. Jung KW, Ha J, Lee SH, Won YJ, Yoo H. An updated nationwide epidemiology of primary brain tumors in republic of Korea. Brain Tumor Res Treat. 2013; 1(1):16–23.

2. Lee CH, Jung KW, Yoo H, Park S, Lee SH. Epidemiology of primary brain and central nervous system tumors in Korea. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2010; 48(2):145–152.

3. Rozmovits L, Khu KJ, Osman S, Gentili F, Guha A, Bernstein M. Information gaps for patients requiring craniotomy for benign brain lesion: a qualitative study. J Neurooncol. 2010; 96(2):241–247.

4. National Cancer Information Center. Web site Center. Accessed August 28, 2015. http://www.cancer.go.kr.

5. Taphoorn MJ, Sizoo EM, Bottomley A. Review on quality of life issues in patients with primary brain tumors. Oncologist. 2010; 15(6):618–626.

6. Kim CY, Chung HT, Lee SH, Kim DG, Jumg HW. Quality of life in patients with vestibular schwannoma after treatment: Short form-36 based study. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2003; 33:535–539.

7. Gustafsson M, Edvardsson T, Ahlström G. The relationship between function, quality of life and coping in patients with low-grade gliomas. Support Care Cancer. 2006; 14(12):1205–1212.

8. Mauer M, Stupp R, Taphoorn M, Coens C, Osoba D, Marosi C, et al. The prognostic value of health-related quality-of-life data in predicting survival in glioblastoma cancer patients: results from an international randomised phase III EORTC brain tumour and radiation oncology groups, and NCIC clinical trials group study. Br J Cancer. 2007; 97(3):302–307.

9. Cheng S, Naidoo Y, da Cruz M, Dexter M. Quality of life in postoperative vestibular schwannoma patients. Laryngoscope. 2009; 119(11):2252–2257.

10. Liu R, Page M, Solheim K, Fox S, Chang SM. Quality of life in adults with brain tumors: current knowledge and future directions. Neuro Oncol. 2009; 11(3):330–339.

11. Taphoorn MJ, Klein M. Cognitive deficits in adult patients with brain tumours. Lancet Neurol. 2004; 3(3):159–168.

12. Jung Y. The relationship between self-care agency and quality of life of cancer patients. J Korean Acad Adult Nurs. 1993; 5(2):188–201.

13. Lee M. Relationships between self-care agency and quality of life of head and neck cancer patients following surgery [master's thesis]. Seoul: Ehwa Univ.;2004.

14. So HS. Testing constuct validity of self-as-carer inventory and its predictors. J Korean Acad Adult Nurs. 1992; 4(2):147–161.

15. Eo YS. Effects of an Empowerment Program on the Burden of Mothers Having a Child with Cerebral Palsy. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2005; 35(1):154–164.

16. Park SY, Nam YW, Baek MW. The relationships among self-care agency, family support, quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Muscle Joint Health. 2000; 7(2):281–293.

17. Kim HS. Development and evaluation of self-care agency promoting programme for prostatectomy patients. Int J Urol Nurs. 2011; 5(1):34–44.

18. Geden E, Taylor S. Construct and empirical validity of the Self-As-Carer Inventory. Nurs Res. 1991; 40(1):47–50.

19. Williams LS, Weinberger M, Harris LE, Clark DO, Biller J. Development of a stroke-specific quality of life scale. Stroke. 1999; 30(7):1362–1369.

20. Moon J. A study on the factors affecting stroke quality of life; using the Stroke-Specific Quality of Life [master's thesis]. Daegu: Daegu Univ.;2004.

21. Kim MY, Kim KS. Quality of life and the related factors in cerebrovascular surgery patients. Korean J Rehabil Nurs. 2005; 8(1):5–12.

22. Bae J, Shim M. A study on self-care agency and quality of life in patients with heart valve surgerys. J Korea Acad Ind Coop Soc. 2011; 12(9):3975–3983.

TOOLS

Similar articles