Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Well-being treatments in cancer care: patient benefits
  1. Guillaume Buiret1 and
  2. Sophie Lantheaume2,3
  1. 1Plate-forme de cancérologie, Centre Hospitalier de Valence, Valence, France
  2. 2Unité de soins de support, Hôpital Privé Drôme Ardèche, Guilherand-Granges, France
  3. 3Laboratoire Inter-universitaire de Psychologie: Personnalité, Cognition et Changement Social (LIP PC2S), Université Grenoble Alpes, Saint-Martin-d'Heres, France
  1. Correspondence to Dr Guillaume Buiret, Centre Hospitalier de Valence, 26953, Valence, France; gbuiret{at}ch-valence.fr

Abstract

Objectives Well-being care is widely offered and delivered in patients with cancer. However, very few studies have rigorously evaluated its benefits. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of four well-being treatments (foot reflexology, socio-aesthetics, sophrology and singing) provided in a healthcare facility.

Methods Three hundred and seventy-four patients with cancer were offered a well-being treatment and agreed to evaluate the type of treatment received, the benefits felt as a result, and numerical evaluation scales for pain and well-being before and after the session.

Results The distribution of well-being treatments provided was as follows: foot reflexology: 19.0%, socio-aesthetics: 63.9%, sophrology: 6.7%, singing: 10.4%. The average gain in pain relief was 1.01 on a scale of 0–10 (p<10−5) and on well-being 6.97 on a scale of −10 to +10 (p<10−5). One patient (0.3%) experienced pain induced by a foot reflexology session and one patient (0.3%) experienced a deterioration in well-being following a singing session.

Conclusion The well-being treatments studied provided significant pain relief and increased well-being in patients with cancer after their completion.

  • clinical assessment
  • symptoms and symptom management

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors Conception or design of the work—GB and SL. Data collection—GB. Data analysis and interpretation—GB and SL. Drafting the article—GB and SL. Critical revision of the article—GB and SL. Final approval of the version to be published—GB and SL.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.