For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
5
views
34
references
 Top references
cited by
6
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      2,007
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Factors influencing family function in spousal caregivers of head and neck cancer patients within 6 months posttreatment

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <p class="first" id="d4155773e144">Spousal caregiving of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients challenges relationship quality and may negatively impact family function. Our purpose was to identify factors associated with family dysfunction in spousal caregivers (SCs) of HNC patients within the first 6 months after treatment. We explored whether patient or SC characteristics differ by level of family dysfunction. </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries

          Hyuna Sung, Jacques Ferlay, Rebecca Siegel … (2021)
          This article provides an update on the global cancer burden using the GLOBOCAN 2020 estimates of cancer incidence and mortality produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Worldwide, an estimated 19.3 million new cancer cases (18.1 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and almost 10.0 million cancer deaths (9.9 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) occurred in 2020. Female breast cancer has surpassed lung cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer, with an estimated 2.3 million new cases (11.7%), followed by lung (11.4%), colorectal (10.0 %), prostate (7.3%), and stomach (5.6%) cancers. Lung cancer remained the leading cause of cancer death, with an estimated 1.8 million deaths (18%), followed by colorectal (9.4%), liver (8.3%), stomach (7.7%), and female breast (6.9%) cancers. Overall incidence was from 2-fold to 3-fold higher in transitioned versus transitioning countries for both sexes, whereas mortality varied <2-fold for men and little for women. Death rates for female breast and cervical cancers, however, were considerably higher in transitioning versus transitioned countries (15.0 vs 12.8 per 100,000 and 12.4 vs 5.2 per 100,000, respectively). The global cancer burden is expected to be 28.4 million cases in 2040, a 47% rise from 2020, with a larger increase in transitioning (64% to 95%) versus transitioned (32% to 56%) countries due to demographic changes, although this may be further exacerbated by increasing risk factors associated with globalization and a growing economy. Efforts to build a sustainable infrastructure for the dissemination of cancer prevention measures and provision of cancer care in transitioning countries is critical for global cancer control.
          Article 0 comments Cited 41021 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
          Article has an altmetric score of 3616
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales.

            Amelia Williamson, Barbara Hoggart (2005)
            This review aims to explore the research available relating to three commonly used pain rating scales, the Visual Analogue Scale, the Verbal Rating Scale and the Numerical Rating Scale. The review provides information needed to understand the main properties of the scales. Data generated from pain-rating scales can be easily misunderstood. This review can help clinicians to understand the main features of these tools and thus use them effectively. A MedLine review via PubMed was carried out with no restriction of age of papers retrieved. Papers were examined for methodological soundness before being included. The search terms initially included pain rating scales, pain measurement, Visual Analogue Scale, VAS, Verbal Rating Scale, VRS, Numerical/numeric Rating Scale, NRS. The reference lists of retrieved articles were used to generate more papers and search terms. Only English Language papers were examined. All three pain-rating scales are valid, reliable and appropriate for use in clinical practice, although the Visual Analogue Scale has more practical difficulties than the Verbal Rating Scale or the Numerical Rating Scale. For general purposes the Numerical Rating Scale has good sensitivity and generates data that can be statistically analysed for audit purposes. Patients who seek a sensitive pain-rating scale would probably choose this one. For simplicity patients prefer the Verbal Rating Scale, but it lacks sensitivity and the data it produces can be misunderstood. In order to use pain-rating scales well clinicians need to appreciate the potential for error within the tools, and the potential they have to provide the required information. Interpretation of the data from a pain-rating scale is not as straightforward as it might first appear.
            Article 0 comments Cited 464 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Article has an altmetric score of 142
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Measuring Marital Quality: A Critical Look at the Dependent Variable

              Robert Norton (1983)
              Article 0 comments Cited 355 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Article has an altmetric score of 9
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Shu-Ching Chen: (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Title: Supportive Care in Cancer
                Abbreviated Title: Support Care Cancer
                Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                ISSN (Print): 0941-4355
                ISSN (Electronic): 1433-7339
                Publication date Created: September 2022
                Publication date (Electronic): May 23 2022
                Publication date (Print): September 2022
                Volume: 30
                Issue: 9
                Pages: 7313-7322
                Article
                DOI: 10.1007/s00520-022-07158-4
                PubMed ID: 35606476
                SO-VID: 7001d401-65a1-4cd0-87e7-269c7c2c32e2
                Copyright © © 2022
                License:

                https://www.springer.com/tdm

                https://www.springer.com/tdm

                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                13
                0
                5
                0
                Smart Citations
                13
                0
                5
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content2,007

                See all similar

                Cited by6

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors528

                See all reference authors