Inpatient versus Outpatient Rehabilitation after Breast and Gynecological Cancers Ã¢ÂÂ A Comparative Study
1Centre for Health Promotion, Department of Social Work and Health Science, Faculty of Social Sciences and Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
- *Corresponding Author:
- Line M. Oldervoll
Bygg 11, niva 57491 Trondheim, Norway
Tel: +47 97529731
E-mail: [email protected]
Received Date: February 19, 2014; Accepted Date: March 24, 2014; Published Date: March 28, 2014
Citation: Oldervoll LM, Thorsen L, Kaasa S, Fossa SD, Dahl AA, et al. (2014) Inpatient versus Outpatient Rehabilitation after Breast and Gynecological Cancers – A Comparative Study. Int J Phys Med Rehabil 2:187. doi: 10.4172/2329-9096.1000187
Copyright: © 2014 Oldervoll LM, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
The aim of the present study was to compare change in work status, fatigue and health related quality of life (HRQoL) from admission to 6 months after discharge among patients with breast and gynecological cancer who participated in an Inpatient Rehabilitation Program (IRP) or an Outpatient Rehabilitation Program (ORP) respectively. Women aged 18-67 years, being on sick-leave or self-reported being in need of sick-leave were included. The IRP consisted of a three weeks stay and one week booster stay at a rehabilitation center. The ORP consisted of seven weekly sessions at an academic cancer hospital. Both programs included physical exercise, patient education and group discussions. Patient-reported work status was the primary endpoint and was assessed at admission (T0) and six months after discharge (T2). Secondary endpoints were physical fatigue and HRQoL. Cochran-Armitage test for trend was used to analyze differences in change in work status between the programs. Linear regression analyses were used to analyze difference in change for the secondary endpoints. No difference in change of work status was observed between IRP and ORP from start of program (T0) to T2, as 73% improved their work status in the IRP and 76% in ORP. Fatigue and HRQoL improved substantially irrespective of programs and without differences between the programs. Outpatient rehabilitation might be as effective as inpatient rehabilitation but needs to be confirmed in a controlled study.