ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to examine a staged theoretical model to explain cultural knowledge-based multidimensional burden of women family caregivers caring for community-dwelling older adults using a modified Poulshock and Deimling model. In the model, the antecedents included elders' impairment in activities of daily living (ADL), elders' cognitive impairment, caregivers' self-efficacy, and caregivers' familism. The perception contained the disruptive behavior burden and social functioning burden of caregivers. The consequence variable included social activity restriction and negative changes in family relationships. The total sample was 157 primary women caregivers caring for community-dwelling older adults aged 65 and older. Instruments were General Self-Efficacy Scale, Family Scale, and Burden Scale. Path analysis was done to analyze the model using multiple linear regression methods. This study showed that impairments of older adults (impairment in ADL, cognitive impairment) and caregiver beliefs (strong familism, low self-efficacy) had an indirect influence on negative changes in family relationship and social activity restriction through the perceived emotional distress.
Subject(s)
Adaptation, Psychological , Caregivers/psychology , Stress, Psychological , Activities of Daily Living , Cognitive Dysfunction , Female , Humans , Independent Living , Models, Theoretical , Republic of Korea , Self EfficacyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Although its efficacy is unproven, 5-fluorouracil plus cisplatin (FP) is used to prevent postoperative relapse in gastric cancer. We investigated the safety and feasibility of S-1 plus cisplatin (SP) vs. FP for stage IIIB-IV (M0) gastric cancer. METHODS: Following curative resection, 41 stage IIIB-IV (M0) gastric cancer patients were assigned to SP (eight 14-day cycles of S-1 [40 mg/m(2) twice daily] plus cisplatin [60 mg/m(2) day 1] administered every 3 weeks) or FP (six 3-day cycles of FU [1 g/m(2) per day] plus cisplatin [80 mg/m(2) day 1] every 4 weeks). Doses were reduced based on predefined criteria. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were balanced between the two arms. In total, 124 cycles of SP (N = 20, median = 7, range 1-8) and 113 cycles of FP (N = 21, median 6, range 1-6) were administered. The median relative dose intensity per patient was 75% (49.99-100%) for S-1, 100% (75-100%) for cisplatin in SP, and 100% (64-100%) for 5-FU, 100% (60-100%) for cisplatin in FP. The relative dose intensity of FP was stable, while that of SP decreased during treatment. After median follow-up of 7.9 months (3.8-14.55), the median RFS was not reached. Relapse occurred in two (10%) patients on SP and five (23.8%) in the FP arm (P = 0.24). The incidence of grade 3-4 granulocytopenia was 36.8% with SP and 14.3% with FP. Grade 3-4 non-hematologic toxicities included fatigue (5.2% with SP vs. 4.8% with FP), vomiting (10.5% with SP vs. 0% with FP), and infection (5.2% with SP vs. 0% FP). CONCLUSION: S-1 plus cisplatin was feasible and tolerable as adjuvant treatment for stage IIIB-IV (M0) gastric cancer. However, because of decreased relative dose intensity during treatment, further study is warranted to determine optimal dosage and combination.
