The Effect Of Socıal Support On The Lıfe Qualıty Of The Patıents Hospıtalızed In The Meram Medıcal Faculty Of The Necmettin Erbakan Unıversıty

Abstract

Aim: This study has been made in order to detect the relation between the social support and quality of life that the patients perceive.

Importance: It is thought that knowing how and in which areas cancer and its treatment effects the patient and his family’s life quality will be helpful to the cancerous patient and his family to increase their life qualities. Therefore, identifying life quality and perceived social support level of the patients placed in the sample of the study and taking necessary precautions are important in terms of contributing to the treatment process and creating a remedy.

Method: Questionnaire has been used in collecting data (socio-demographic questions and questions relating to the illness), Ferrans and Povvers ‘Cancer adaptation of the quality of life index -111(EORTC QLQ-C30)’ has been used for evaluating the quality of life; and ‘Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) has been used in order to identify the social support that the patients perceived.The cancerous patients hospitalized in the clinic of oncology of the Medical Faculty of Meram situated in Konya in 2015 and the patients who came to the chemotherapy unit in order to get outpatient treatment has created the universe of the study.110 patients who are suitable for the research criteria and who accepted to participate in the research, have composed the sample of the study.

Results and Findings: As a result of study, a significant positive correlation has been found between the social support that the patients perceived and their total quality of life.When the average scores that the patients in the study group took from the life quality scale are evaluated, it has been determined that the highest average score belongs to psychological / religious subscale 24,27±5,79 and the least average score belongs to health and mobility subscale 21.25±5.82.When the average scores that the patients took from the social support scale are evaluated, it has been seen that the highest average score belongs to the subscale perceived from family 25.21±4.72, and the least average score belongs to the subscale perceived from a special person 15.92±8.82.

Keywords

• Cancer,Perceived social support

References

1. 1. Akyol A D.(1993). Yaşam kalitesi ve yaklaşımları. Ege Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Yüksek Okulu Dergisi; 9 (2):75-80.
2. 2. Anuk, D, (1998). Kanser, kanserli hasta, hasta ailesi ve tedavi ekibi etkileşimi. V. Ulusal Konsültasyon-Liyezon Psikiyatrisi Kongresi “Uluslar arası Katılımlı”. 166-172.
3. 3. Arslan, S. (2003). Kanserli hastalarda yaşam kalitesinin değerlendirilmesi. Atatürk Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Yüksekokulu Dergisi: 6: 38-47.
4. 4. Bergner, M. (1989). Quality of Life, Health Status and Clinical Research. Medical Care 27(3):148-156.
5. 5. Can, G; Durna, Z; Aydıner, A. (2010). The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Quality of Life Index [QLI](Cancer version) Eur J Oncol Nurs:14: 316-321.
6. 6. Cella DF. (1996) Quality of life: concepts and definition. Journal of Pain-Symptom Management, 9(3): 186-192
7. 7. Cleton, F.J.(1995) Cancer Therapy. Odyssey, 1(2): 18-19
8. 8. Courtens, A.M., (1996). Longitudinal study on quality of life and social support in cancer patients. Cancer Nursing ; 19 (3):162-169.

9. 9. De Haes, T.C.J.M., Knıppenberg, F.C.E., (1986). The quality of life of cancer patients: a review of the literature. Soc. Sci. Med; 20 (8) 809-817.
10. 10.Eker,D; Arkar,H; Yaldız,H. (2001). Çok boyutlu algılanan sosyal destek ölçeğinin gözden geçirilmiş formunun faktör yapısı, geçerlik ve güvenirliği. Türk Psikiyatri Derg ;12(1):17-25.
11. 11.Ferrans,C., Powers, M., (1985). Quality of life index: development and psychometric properties. Adv Nurs Sci 8, 15–24.
12. 12. Fries, J.F., Singh,G., (1996). The hierarchy of patient outcomes. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams &Wilkins; 33-40.
13. 13.https://www.uic.edu/orgs/qli/questionaires/pdf/cancerversionIII/cancersyntax.pdf (Erişim Tarihi:26.04.2015).
14. 14.İliçin G., Biberoğlu K., Süleymanlar G., (1999). Ünal S. Temel İç Hastalıkları. 1385-1416. Ankara. Güneş Kitabevi.
15. 15.Karamanoğlu, E.,(1999). Kemoterapi Alan Kanser Hastalarında Yaşam Kalitesi Ve Yaşam Kalitesini Etkileyen Faktörlerin İncelenmesi, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
16. 16. Kızılcı S. (1997). Kemoterapi Alan Kanserli Hastalar ve Yakınlarının Yaşam Kalitesi ve Yaşam Kalitesini Etkileyen Faktörler. Doktora Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
17. 17.Kızılcı S,(1999). Kemoterapi alan kanserli hastalar ve yakınlarının yaşam kalitesini etkileyen faktörler.Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Yüksekokulu Dergisi : 3: 18-26
18. 18. Louise A (1992) An ınvestigetion of the relationship between patients’ preferred role in care and quality of life in a group of chronically ill patients. Nursing Research Abstract, 14(3):43
19. 19. Reis N, (2003). Jinekolojik Kanserlerde Yaşam Kalitesi ve Etkileyen Faktörler, Doktora Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Doğum Ve Kadın Hastalıkları Hemşireliği Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul.
20. 20. Rustoen T, (1999). Qulity of life in newly diagnosed cancer patients. Journal of Advanced Nursing; 29 (2): 490-498.
21. 21. Schag, C.A.C., (1991). Cancer rehabilitation evaluation system short form (Cares-SF): A cancer specific rehabilitation and quality of life instrument. Cancer; 68:1406-1414.
22. 22. Schmidt, C.E.; Bestmann, B.; Kuchler, T.; Longo,W.E.; Rohde, V.; Kremer, B.; (2005). Gender differences in quality of life of patients with rectal cancer. A five-year prospective study. World J Surg, 29 (12), 1630-1641.
23. 23. Yıldız Ş, (1998). Meme Kanserli Bireylere Kemoterapi Konusunda Evde Verilen Eğitimin Yaşam Kalitesi Üzerine Etkisi, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İç Hastalıkları Hemşireliği, İzmir.