Functional Status in Turkish Women with Gynecological Cancer

  • Akkuzu, Gulcihan (Department, Faculty of Health Sciences, Nursing and Health Service, Baskent University) ;
  • Talas, Melek Serpil (Nursing Department, Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Ankara University) ;
  • Ortac, Firat (Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Surgical Sciences, School of Medicine, Ankara University)
  • Published : 2014.03.01


Background: Functional status is the ability to perform daily activities. Little is known about quality of life and health status of gynaecological cancer patients. The present study therefore aimed to evaluate the functional status of women receiving treatment for gynecological oncological disease while not hospitalised. Materials and Methods: This descriptive study covered 42 patients monitored by the Gynecological Oncology Unit in 2011. Data were collected using the Functional Living Index-Cancer and analysed with the chi square test, independent samples t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, one-way ANOVA test and the Kruskal-Wallis H test. Results: Of the 42 cases, 66.7% had been diagnosed within the previous year and 90.5% were undergoing chemotherapy. The most severe symptoms experienced were pain (35.7%), fatigue-weakness (40.5%) and nausea and vomiting (56.5%). Daily activities where the most difficulty was experienced were housework (28.6%), average pace walking (31.0%), carrying more than 5 kg (28.6%). The mean Functional Living Index score was quite high ($103.5{\pm}24.1$). FLIC-C scale scores did not vary with the educational status, diagnosis duration, and family history of cancer (p>0.05). Conclusions: Evaluation of the functional status of gynecological cancer patients and how they cope with problems should indicate to healthcare professionals what help can be given to maintain quality of life.


  1. Reis N, Coskun A, Kizilkaya Beji N (2006). Jinekolojik kanserlerde yasam kalitesi ve etkileyen faktorler [quality of life in gynecologic oncology and affecting factors], Ataturk Universitesi Hemsirelik Yuksekokulu Dergisi, 9, 25-35.
  2. Ozkan S, Ogce F (2012) Importance of social support for functional status in breast cancer patients, Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 13, 957-62
  3. Pilkington FB, Mitchell GJ (2004). Quality of life for women living with a gynecology cancer, Nurs Sci Q, 17, 147-55.
  4. Reis N, Beji NK, Coskun A (2010) Quality of life and sexual functioning in gynecological cancer patients: results from quantitative and qualitative data, Eur J Oncol Nurs, 14, 137-46.
  5. Schipper H, Clinch J, McMurray A, et al (1984). measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: the functional living indexcancer: development and validation. J Clin Oncol, 2, 472-83.
  6. Sharma C, Deutsch I, Horowitz DP, et al (2012). Patterns of care and treatment outcomes for elderly women with cervical cancer. Cancer, 118, 3618-26.
  7. Van Cleave JH, Egleston BL, McCorkle R (2011). Factors other than age affect recovery of functional status inolder adults after cancer surgery. J Am Geriatr Soc, 59, 34-43.
  8. Van Cleave JH, Egleston BL, Bourbonniere M, et al (2012). Functional status in older women following gynecological cancer surgery: can choice of measure influence evidence for clinical practice? Geriatric Nurs, 33, 34-43.
  9. Bektas HA, Akdemir N (2006). The assessment of functional status in individual's who have cancer. Turkiye Klinikleri J Med Sci, 6, 488-99 (in Turkish).
  10. Akkuzu G (2012). An evaluation of the quality of life of women undergoing chemotherapy due to a diagnosis of a gynecological oncological disease. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 13, 1277-80.
  11. Arriba LN, Nickles FA, Frasure H, et al (2010). A review of issues surrounding quality of life among women with ovarian cancer, Gynecol Oncol, 119, 390-6.
  12. Bektas HA, Akdemir N (2008). Reliability and validity of the functional living index-cancer (FLIC) in Turkish cancer patients, Cancer Nurs, 31, 1-7.
  13. Chalas E (2013). Gynecologic oncology quality measures: What really matters? Gynecologic Oncol, 130, 401-2.
  14. Ell K, Xie B, Wells A, et al (2008). Economic stress among low-income women with cancer effects on quality of life. Cancer, 112, 616-25.
  15. Eylen B (2002). The validity, reliability and factor structure study on the scale of social support for cancer patients, Uludag Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 20, 100-7 (in Turkish).
  16. Fader AN, Frasure HE, Gil KM, et al (2011). Quality of life in endometrial cancer survivors:what does obesity have to do with it? Obstet Gynecol Int, 2011, 308609.
  17. Filiz Ogce, Sevgi Ozkan (2008). Changes in functional status and physical and psychological symptoms in women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 9, 449-52.
  18. Gogoi RP, Urban R, Sun H, et al (2012). Evaluation of society of gynecologic oncologists (SGO) ovarian cancer quality surgical measures, Gynecologic Oncol, 126, 217-9.
  19. Luckett T, King M, Butow P, et al (2010). Assessing healthrelated quality of life in gynecologic oncology: a systematic review of questionnaires and their ability to detect clinically important differences and change, Int J Gynecol Cancer, 20, 664-84.
  20. Akkuzu G, Ayhan A (2013). Sexual functions of Turkish women with gynecologic cancer during the chemotherapy process. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 3561-4.

Cited by

  1. Determination of Sexual Problems of Turkish Patients Receiving Gynecologic Cancer Treatment: a Cross-sectional Study vol.15, pp.16, 2014,
  2. Phase II Study on EANI Combined with Hydrochloride Palonosetron for Prevention of Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting Following Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy vol.15, pp.9, 2014,
  3. Prevalence of Anxiety May Not be Elevated in Thai Ovarian Cancer Patients Following Treatment vol.16, pp.3, 2015,
  4. Evaluation of Health-Related Quality of Life among Patients with Cervical Cancer in Indonesia vol.16, pp.8, 2015,
  5. Living and Coping With Cancer vol.29, pp.3, 2015,