Journal List > Asian Oncol Nurs > v.17(4) > 1081907

TOOLS
Bae, Im, Noh, Son, and Seo: Relationships among Hope, Self-care Agency and Quality of Life of Female Oncology Patients with Lymphedema
Original Article

Asian Oncol Nurs 2017;17(4):213-219.

Published online: 5 December 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5388/aon.2017.17.4.213

Relationships among Hope, Self-care Agency and Quality of Life of Female Oncology Patients with Lymphedema

Ka Ryeong Bae1, Young Soon Im2, Gie Ok Noh3, Yoojung Son4, Han Gil Seo4

1Samsung Advanced Institute for Health Science & Technology, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea

2Department of Nursing, Kyungbuk College, Yeongju, South Korea

3Department of Nursing, Konyang University, Daejeon, South Korea

4Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea

Address reprint requests to: Im, Young Soon Department of Nursing, Kyungbuk College 77, Deahakro, Yeongju-si, Gyeongsangbuk-do 36133, Korea Tel: +82-54-630-5149 Fax: +82-54-632-5142 E-mail: cathrina@daum.net

Received 9 Nov 201720 Dec 2017       Accepted 26 Dec 2017

Copyright © 2017 Korean Ophthalmological Society

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.

초록

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships among hope, self-care agency and quality of life of female oncology patients with lymphedema.

Methods

From May 2014 to April 2016, questionnaire responses of 102 patients diagnosed with secondary lymphedema were collected. The data of 100 patients were analysed using the IBM SPSS Statistics 21.0 program.

Results

There was a statistically significant correlation between hope and self-care agency. Self-care agency increased when participants had higher hope (r=.44, p<.001). Moreover, participants with higher Physical Component Summary (PCS) scores also had higher Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores (r=.77, p<.001).

Conclusion

Educational programs and organized support for improving hope and PCS are needed to increase self-care agency and MCS of female cancer patients with secondary lymphedema.

Keywords: Neoplasms, Lymphedema, Hope, Self Care, Quality of Life

REFERENCES

1. National Cancer Information Center (KR). What is lymphedema? [Internet]. Available from. https://www.cancer.go.kr/lay1/S1T426C427/contents.do. [Accessed October 5, 2017].
2. Park JH. Comparisons of physiological and psychosocial symptoms for breast cancer patients with and without lymphedema. J Korean Acad Adult Nurs. 2006; 18:357–66.
3. Kang SH, Hwang KH, Sim YJ, Jeong HJ, Lee TH, Kim SH. The prevalence and risk factors of lower limb lymphedema in the patients with gynecologic neoplasms. Korean J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 52:815–20.
4. The Korean Society of Internal Medicine, Harrison's Internal Medicine Editorial Committee. Harrison's internal medicine. 17th ed.Seoul: MIP;2010.
5. Cho MO, Jung HM, Jun JY, Sohn SK, Yoo YJ, No MY, et al. A study on self-care among the lymphedema patients. J Korean Acad Adult Nurs. 2003; 15:383–92.
6. Jung HM, Cho MO. Factors influencing the emotional state of patients with lymphedema. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2006; 36:845–52.
crossref
7. Hamilton R, Thomas R. Renegotiating hope while living with lymph-oedema after cancer: a qualitative study. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2016; 25:822–31.
crossref
8. Herth K. Abbreviated instrument to measure hope: development and psychometric evaluation. J Adv Nurs. 1992; 17:1251–9.
crossref
9. Tae YS, Choi YS, Nam GH, Bae JY. Development of the hope scale for Korean cancer patients. Korean J Adult Nurs. 2017; 29:211–23.
crossref
10. Orem DE, Taylor SG, Renpenning KM. Nursing: concepts of practice. 6th ed.St. Louis, MO: Mosby;2001.
11. Park HS, Oh SJ, Park KY. A study on nursing care and self-care of lymphedema in mastectomy patients. J Korean Acad Adult Nurs. 2006; 18:386–94.
12. Mak SS, Mo KF, Suen JJ, Chan SL, Ma WL, Yeo W. Lymphedema and quality of life in Chinese women after treatment for breast cancer. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2009; 13:110–5.
crossref
13. Rowlands IJ, Beesley VL, Janda M, Hayes SC, Obermair A, Quinn MA, et al. Quality of life of women with lower limb swelling or lymphedema 3–5 years following endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2014; 133:314–8.
14. Yu SY, Kim JH. Lower limb lymphedema and quality of life in gynecologic cancer patients. Asian Oncol Nurs. 2017; 17:20–8.
crossref
15. Han KH, Kim MH. A study on the relationship between hope and self-care agency in hemodialysis patients. Korean J Rehabil Nurs. 2001; 4:137–45.
16. Boo S. Self-care agency and quality of life in brain tumor patients after surgery. Asian Oncol Nurs. 2015; 15:211–8.
crossref
17. Han SS, Shin IS, Kim YJ. Factors that influence quality of life in cancer patients. Korean J Health Promot Dis Prev. 2009; 9:33–40.
18. Tae YS, Youn S. Effect of a forgiveness nursing intervention program on hope and quality of life in woman cancer patients. J Korean Oncol Nurs. 2006; 6:111–20.
19. Geden E, Taylor S. Self-as carer: a preliminary evaluation. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Nursing Research Conference. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri-Columbia School of Nursing. 1988.
20. Jung Y. The relationship between self-care agency and quality of life of cancer patients. J Korean Acad Adult Nurs. 1993; 5:188–201.
21. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992; 30:473–83.
22. Ryu EJ, Lee JM, Choi SY. The relationships of pain cognition, performance status, and hope with health-related quality of life in cancer patients. J Korean Acad Adult Nurs. 2007; 19:155–65.
23. Tae YS, Kim MY. Influencing factors on hope among patients with breast cancer. J Korean Oncol Nurs. 2009; 9:86–94.
24. Byun JG, Lee JP, Park JY, Kim YM, Lee EH, Chang KH, et al. Factors influencing quality of life of cervical cancer patients in Korea. Korean J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 49:2563–72.
25. Kim SI, Lim MC, Lee JS, Lee Y, Park K, Joo J, et al. Impact of lower limb lymphedema on quality of life in gynecologic cancer survivors after pelvic lymph node dissection. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015; 192:31–6.
crossref
26. Langbecker D, Hayes SC, Newman B, Janda M. Treatment for upper-limb and lower-limb lymphedema by professionals specializing in lymphedema care. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2008; 17:557–64.
crossref
27. Song HJ, Hyun MY, Lee EJ. Hope, self-care agency and mental health in patients with chronic schizophrenia. J Korean Acad Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2011; 20:180–7.
crossref
28. Park GY. Study on the hope, resilience, ability to self-care, and quality of life hemodialysis patients [dissertation]. Seoul: Hanyang Univ.;2016.

Table 1.
Differences of Hope, Self-care agency and Quality of Life according to General Characteristics (N =100)
Characteristics Categories n (%) Hope Self-care agency Quality of life – PCS Quality of life – MCS
M ± SD t or F (p) M ± SD t or F (p) M ± SD t or F (p) M ± SD t or F (p)
Age (year) 19~39 a 52 (52.0) 36.36 ± 6.84 1.50 154.88 ± 19.52 1.49 45.61 ± 9.63 4.43 39.47 ± 11.88 9.38
40~59 b 43 (43.0) 34.08 ± 7.68 (.228) 147.84 ± 23.36 (.230) 52.51 ± 13.19 (.014) 50.33 ± 17.64 (＜.001)
60~79 c 5 (5.0) 37.56 ± 7.56 144.96 ± 21.44 54.25 ± 21.59 a＜ b∗ 61.47 ± 17.53 a＜ b, c∗
Religion Yes 85 (85.0) 35,76 ± 7.20 1.11 152.00 ± 20.80 0.81 49.10 ± 12.33 0.17 45.48 ± 15.41 0.35
No 15 (15.0) 33.48 ± 7.56 (.268) 147.20 ± 24.00 (.419) 48.52 ± 13.04 (.869) 43.90 ± 20.15 (.728)
Living with partner Yes 76 (76.0) 36.24 ± 7.08 2.13 154.24 ± 20.48 2.51 47.61 ± 12.34 -2.04 43.86 ± 16.25 -1.53
No 24 (24.0) 32.76 ± 7.44 (.036) 142.08 ± 21.76 (.014) 53.44 ± 11.66 (.044) 49.60 ± 15.11 (.129)
Education level ≤ Middle school 29 (29.0) 33.72 ± 8.04 1.10(.336) 148.48 ± 26.24 0.34(.711) 51.80 ± 10.60 1.08(.343) 48.37 ± 14.94 1.09(.341)
High school 39 (39.0) 35.88 ± 6.96 152.96 ± 18.88 48.26 ± 14.03 45.33 ± 18.56
≥ College 32 (32.0) 36.36 ± 6.96 152.00 ± 19.20 47.39 ± 11.64 42.29 ± 13.64
Occupation Yes 27 (27.0) 35.88 ± 6.60 0.38 152.32 ± 20.48 0.31 45.59 ± 8.35 -2.09 40.60 ± 10.56 -2.20
No 73 (73.0) 35.28 ± 7.56 (.707) 151.04 ± 21.76 (.758) 50.27 ± 13.39 (.040) 46.95 ± 17.47 (.031)
Monthly house income (10,000 won) ＜100 a 13 (13.0) 35.64 ± 7.92 2.86 153.92 ± 17.60 2.08 52.55 ± 9.48 2.29 51.91 ± 14.85 1.39
100~200 b 18 (18.0) 32.88 ± 7.20 (.041) 143.36 ± 26.24 (.107) 54.51 ± 7.53 (.083) 48.39 ± 12.00 (.250)
201~300 c 21 (21.0) 33.12 ± 5.76 146.24 ± 19.52 47.01 ± 9.49 42.49 ± 12.21
≥300 d 48 (48.0) 37.44 ± 7.44 155.84 ± 20.16 46.86 ± 14.81 43.45 ± 18.75
Type of cancer Breast cancer 75 (75.0) 35.52 ± 7.56 0.24 151.68 ± 20.48 0.26 47.95 ± 12.78 -1.50 45.17 ± 16.72 -0.07
Gynecological cancer 25 (25.0) 35.16 ± 6.72 (.808) 150.40 ± 23.68 (.796) 52.20 ± 10.67 (.137) 45.44 ± 14.42 (.945)
Lymphedema site Upper limb 71 (71.0) 35.52 ± 7.56 0.22 151.68 ± 20.80 0.29 47.93 ± 12.87 -1.47 45.10 ± 16.82 -0.14
Lower limb 29 (29.0) 35.16 ± 6.60 (.823) 150.40 ± 23.04 (.772) 52.07 ± 10.48 (.144) 45.63 ± 14.16 (.887)
Operation Yes 92 (92.0) 35.76 ± 7.20 1.15 152.96 ± 20.16 2.44 49.29 ± 12.53 0.77 45.11 ± 16.45 -0.27
No 8 (8.0) 32.64 ± 8.52 (.253) 134.08 ± 26.88 (.017) 45.78 ± 10.56 (.445) 46.73 ± 12.16 (.786)
Chemotherapy Yes 91 (91.0) 35.40 ± 7.32 -0.23 151.04 ± 21.44 -0.35 48.83 ± 12.57 -0.46 45.09 ± 16.30 -0.30
No 9 (9.0) 36.00 ± 8.64 (.821) 153.60 ± 21.12 (.731) 50.83 ± 10.69 (.645) 46.79 ± 14.65 (.763)
Radiation therapy Yes 71 (71.0) 35.28 ± 8.64 -0.43 152.32 ± 20.16 0.68 49.02 ± 13.16 0.02 46.23 ± 16.94 0.97
No 29 (29.0) 36.00 ± 7.68 (.667) 149.12 ± 24.32 (.496) 48.98 ± 10.41 (.986) 42.80 ± 13.81 (.336)

∗ Scheffé post hoc.

Table 2.
Descriptive Statistics of Hope, Self-care Agency, and Quality of Life (N =100)
Variables M ± SD Range
Hope 35.18 ± 6.67 12~48
Self-care agency 151.32 ± 21.32 32~192
Quality ot life: PCS 49.01 ± 12.38 0~100
 PCS Physical functioning (PF) 43.40 ± 22.76 0~100
 Role-physical (RP) 47.94 ± 30.11 0~100
 Role-physical (RP) Bodily pain (BP) 52.10 ± 21.99 0~100
 Bodily pain (BP) General health (GH) 52.60 ± 17.14 0~100
Quality ot life: MCS 45.24 ± 16.10 0~100
 MCS Vitality (VT) 48.30 ± 17.87 0~100
 Social functioning (SF) 52.38 ± 16.64 0~100
 Role-emotional (RE) 40.08 ± 33.66 0~100
 Mental health (MH) 40.20 ± 18.90 0~100

PCS= Physical component summary; MCS= Mental component summary.

Table 3.
Correlation among Hope, Self-care Agency, and Quality of Life (N =100)
Variables　 Hope Self-care agency Quality of life: PCS Quality of life: MCS
r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p)
Self-care agency .44 (＜.001) 1    
Quality of life: PCS -.05 (.615) -.13 (.210) 1  
Quality of life: MCS -.02 (.881) -.15 (.135) .77 (＜.001) 1

PCS= Physical component summary; MCS= Mental component summary.

TOOLS
Similar articles