| Title |
The association between comorbidities and the quality of life among colorectal cancer survivors in the People's Republic of China
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s100873 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ji-Wei Wang, Li Sun, Ning Ding, Jiang Li, Xiao-Huan Gong, Xue-Fen Chen, Dong-Hui Yu, Zheng-Nian Luo, Zheng-Ping Yuan, Jin-Ming Yu |
| Abstract |
Cancer survivors with certain comorbidities had lower quality of life (QOL). This study was performed to investigate the prevalence of comorbidities and the association between comorbidities and the QOL among Chinese colorectal cancer survivors (CCS). A cross-sectional study was conducted among 1,398 CCS between April and July 2013 in Shanghai, People's Republic of China. All the participants were asked to complete a simplified Chinese version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment quality of life version 3 questionnaire and questions on sociodemographic characteristics and comorbidities. In order to mitigate the bias caused by confounding factors, multiple linear regression models were employed to calculate the adjusted means of QOL scores. The proportion of participants without any comorbidity was only 20.2%. The CCS with comorbidities except hypertension scored significantly lower on the European Organization for Research and Treatment quality of life version 3 questionnaire global health and functioning scales and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General scales but higher on the European Organization for Research and Treatment quality of life version 3 questionnaire symptom scores, indicating that they had poorer QOL, particularly for cardiovascular, respiratory, digestive, and musculoskeletal diseases. There exists a significant association between comorbidities and QOL among Chinese CCS, and participants with comorbidities generally reported lower QOL scores. These findings suggested comprehensive care for CCS. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Professor | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 14 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 11% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 3% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 16 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 June 2016.
All research outputs
#18,463,662
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,298
of 1,605 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,748
of 339,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#56
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,605 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,120 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.