Psychosomatic Medicine Faster Service from Outside North America
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wellisch, D.
Right arrow Articles by Fawzy, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wellisch, D.
Right arrow Articles by Fawzy, F.

Psychosomatic Medicine, Vol 45, Issue 1 11-21, Copyright © 1983 by American Psychosomatic Society


ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Evaluation of psychosocial problems of the homebound cancer patient: I. Methodology and problem frequencies

D Wellisch, J Landsverk, K Guidera, RO Pasnau and F Fawzy

Psychological problem frequencies of very ill, homebound cancer patients were studied using an instrument entitled "Psychosocial Problem Categories for Homebound Cancer Patients." This instrument contains thirteen major categories of problems and fifty individual problems. A total of 570 patient records were obtained from two visiting nurse agencies in two different counties. Records were rated by a pair of trained raters, with level of interrater reliability being r = 0.96. Intervention frequencies by visiting health care professionals were also assessed. Percentages are based on at least one mention of problem or intervention. The five most frequent problem categories included: 1) Somatic side effects, 30% of total problems, of which pain involved 13% of total problems, 2) Patient mood disturbance, 15% of total problems, 3) Equipment problems, 8% of total problems, 4) Family relationship impairment, 7% of total problems, and 5) Cognitive impairment, 6% of total problems. The three most frequent interventions included: 1) Instructor/reinforcement to patient/family, 22% of total interventions, 2) No intervention for problem, 17% of total interventions, and 3) Counseling/emotional support, 17% of total interventions. Because the assessment instrument showed high interrater reliabilities for the two demographically dissimilar patient populations, it may be adaptable to heterogeneous populations.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1983 by the American Psychosomatic Society