Method
Defining quality of life
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Results
Authors | Study Sample | Age | Cancer Stage | Time Since Diagnosis or Surgery1
| Income or Education |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ashing-Giwa et al., 2004 | n = 26 Latina | Latina M = 56 years, range = 40–73 | 0 Latinas stage 0 | Latina M = 4 years | Not provided |
n = 18 non-Latina White | 5 Latinas stage 1 | ||||
n = 24 Black | 7 Latinas stage 2 | ||||
n = 34 Asian American | 5 Latinas stage 3 | ||||
0 Latinas stage 4 | |||||
9 Latinas stage unknown | |||||
Ashing-Giwa et al., 20075
| n = 183 Latina | Latina M = 50 | 18 Latinas stage 0 | Latina M = 2.9 years | 87 Latinas <25 K |
n = 179 non-Latina White | 59 Latinas stage 1 | 36 Latinas 25–45 K | |||
n = 135 Blacks | 75 Latinas stage 2 | 27 Latinas 45–75 K | |||
n = 206 Asian American | 28 Latinas stage 3 | 23 Latinas >75 K | |||
Latinas reported significantly lower income than other groups of women | |||||
Ashing-Giwa et al., 2009 | n = 183 Latina | *M = 55.03 years, range 29–62 | *332 women stage 1 | *M = 2.98 years, SD = 1.67 | *205 women <25 K |
n = 179 non-Latina White | 267 women stage 2 | 312 women 25–75 K | |||
n = 135 Blacks | 95 women stage 3 | 186 women >75 K | |||
n = 206 Asian Americans | Latinas significantly younger at diagnosis than other ethnic groups | ||||
Lim et al., 2009 | n = 183 Latina | Latinas M = 53.45 years, SD = 11.5 | 18 Latinas stage 0 | Latinas M = 2.93 years, SD = 1.6 | 90 Latinas <25 K |
n = 206 Asian | 59 Latinas stage 1 | 39 Latinas 25 K – 45 K | |||
75 Latinas stage 2 | 29 Latinas >45 K–75 K | ||||
No significant differences in age between Latinas and Asian women | 28 Latinas stage 3 | No significant differences between ethnic groups | 25 Latinas >75 K | ||
Latinas significantly more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage than Asians | Latinas reported significantly lower income than Asians | ||||
Bowen et al., 2007 | n = 95 Latina | *M = 55.55 years, SD = 10.4 | *179 women in situ | *6.1, 24, and 35 months | *54 women < = 10 K |
n = 486 non-Latina White | 453 women localized | 86 women >10 K–20 K | |||
n = 199 Black | 172 women regional (unstaged) | 93 women >20 K–30 K | |||
n = 24 Other | 168 women >30 K–50 K | ||||
211 women >50 K–70 K | |||||
113 women >70 K | |||||
Carver et al., 20036
| n = 60 Latina | *M
2
= 53.59 years, SD = 12.41 | *10 women stage 0 | *≤1 year post surgery | *M = 14.25 years, SD = 2.87 |
Study 1 | n = 26 Black | 135 women stage 1 | *<8 weeks | ||
n = 149 non-Latina White | 90 women stage 2 | ||||
Study 2 | n = 16 Latina | *M
2
= 50.37 years, SD = 9.24 | *9 women stage 0 | *Years of education for full sample 15.71 years, SD = 5.33 | |
n = 5 Black | 47 women stage 1 | ||||
n = 72 non-Latina White | 41 women stage 2 | ||||
n = 4 Other | |||||
Petronis et al., 2003 | n = 62 Latina | *M = 53.61 years, SD = 12.42 | *11 women stage 0 | *≤1 year post surgery | *Years of education at diagnosis for full sample 14.25 years, SD = 2.89 |
n = 25 Black | 135 women stage 1 | ||||
n = 150 non-Latina White | 90 women stage 2 | ||||
Spencer et al., 1999 | n = 48 Latina | *M = 53.75 years, SD = 12.62 | *10 women stage 0 | *≤1 year post surgery | *Years of education at diagnosis for full sample 14.39 years, SD = 2.80 |
n = 24 Black | 128 women stage 1 | ||||
n = 151 non-Latina White | 85 women stage 2 | ||||
Carver et al., 20057
| n = 32 Latina | * M = 54.18 years Age at diagnosis, SD = 10.61 | *5 women stage 0 | *5–13 years post surgery | *Years of education at diagnosis for full sample 14.18 years, SD = 3.44 |
n = 114 non-Latina White | 101 women stage 1 | ||||
n = 17 Black | 57 women stage 2 | ||||
Carver et al., 2006 | n = 32 Latina | * M = 54.18 years Age at diagnosis, SD = 10.61 | *5 women stage 0 | *5–13 years after diagnosis | * Years of education at diagnosis for full sample 14.18 years, SD = 3.44 |
n = 114 non-Latina White | 101 women stage 1 | ||||
n = 17 Black | 57 women stage 2 | ||||
Clauser et al., 2008 | *n = over 5,500 | Not provided for women with breast cancer | Not provided | Not provided | Not provided |
Culver et al., 2002 | Sample 1 | Sample 1 | Sample 1 | *2 days prior to surgery | Sample 1 |
n = 4 Latina | *M = 53.72 years, SD = 11.14 | * 55 women stage 1 | 7 days post surgery | *M = 14.63 years, SD = 2.56 | |
n = 1 Black | 20 women stage 2 | 3, 6, 12 months post surgery | |||
n = 70 non-Latina White | |||||
Sample 2 | Sample 2 | Sample 2 | Sample 2 | ||
n = 49 Latina | *M = 56.29 years, SD = 10.27 | *5 women stage 0 | *M = 9.04 years, SD = 4.244 | ||
n = 7 Black | 21 women stage 1 | ||||
30 women stage 2 | |||||
Eversley et al., 2005 | n = 29 Latina | Latina M = 47 years, range 29–68 | 7 Latinas stage 1 | *All women diagnosed within the past 2 years | Latina M monthly income $1,119, range $0–$3,500 |
n = 35 Black | 13 Latinas stage 2 | ||||
n = 35 non-Latina White | 7 Latinas stage 3 | Non-Latina Whites reported significantly greater income than all other groups of women. | |||
n = 17 Other | 2 Latinas stage 4 | ||||
Whites significantly more likely to be diagnosed with stage 1 than women from all other groups. | |||||
Fatone et al., 2007 | n = 12 Latina | *M = 54.10 years, SD = 10.54 | *9 women stage 1–2 | *13 women diagnosed between 1998–20013
| *7 women some high school or less |
n = 8 Black | 3 women stage 3–4 | 7 women diagnosed in 1997 or earlier | 13 women high school graduate or some college | ||
8 unknown stage | |||||
Fobair et al., 2006 | n = 45 Latina | *n = 107 Age <40 years | * 88 women in situ | *253 women = 2–4 months | *102 women 12 years or less of school |
n = 389 non-Latina White | n = 442 Age ≥40 years | 248 women localized | 275 women = 5–7 months | *446 women >12 years of school | |
n = 29 Black | 213 women regional (unstaged) | 20 women = 8 months or more | |||
n = 86 Asian | |||||
Friedman et al., 2006. | n = 22 Latina | *M = 52 years, SD = 10.2 | Not provided | *M = 26 months, SD = 33.5 | *14 less than 8 years |
n = 45 Black | 14 some high school | ||||
n = 14 non-Latina White | 24 high school/GED | ||||
22 some college | |||||
7 college graduate | |||||
Fu et al., 2009 | n = 63 Latina | n = 22 Latinas <45 | 2 Latinas stage 0 | 42 Latinas <2 years | 29 Latinas <10 K |
n = 58 non-Latina White | n = 16 Latinas 45–54 | 17 Latinas stage 1 | 18 Latinas 2–5 years | 11 Latinas 10 K–50 K | |
n = 18 Black | n = 13 Latinas 55–64 | 27 Latinas stage 2 | 3 Latinas >5 years | 8 Latinas 50 K–100 K | |
n = 9 Latinas 65+ | 8 Latinas stage 3 | 3 Latinas >100 K | |||
*M = 52.5, range = 26–90 | 9 Latinas stage not reported | 12 Latinas income not reported | |||
Giedzinska et al., 2004 | n = 78 Latina | M = 51.4, range 30–74 Latinas | * Women were stage 0, 1, or 2 | Latina M = 3.07 years, SD = 1.21 | 3 Latinas <15 K |
n = 233 Black | 18 Latinas 15 K–30 K | ||||
n = 77 Asian American | 25 Latinas 30 K–45 K | ||||
n = 233 non-Latina White | Latinas significantly younger than non-Latina Whites and Blacks | 8 Latinas 45 K–60 K | |||
No significant differences between ethnic groups | 11 Latinas 60 K–75 K | ||||
4 Latinas 75 K–100 K | |||||
5 Latinas >100 K | |||||
Non-Latina Whites and Asians reported significantly higher income than Latinas. | |||||
Janz et al., 2009 | n = 344 Latina | Latinas high acculturation | Latina high acculturation | *Women diagnosed between 2005–2007 | Latinas high acculturation |
n = 386 Black | n = 34 age <50 years | 16 stage 0 | 22 < High School diploma | ||
n = 726 non-Latina White | n = 50 age 50–70 years | 41 stage 1 | 17 High School diploma | ||
n = 160 high acculturation Latina | n = 16 > 70 years | 29 stage 2 | 61 > High School diploma | ||
n = 184 low acculturation Latina | Latina low acculturation | 14 stage 3 | Latina low acculturation | ||
n = 30 age <50 years | Latina low acculturation | 70 < High School diploma | |||
n = 58 age 50–70 years | 21 stage 0 | 20 High School diploma | |||
n = 13 > 70 years | 35 stage 1 | 10 > High School diploma | |||
Latinas more likely to be <50 years than non-Latina Whites | 33 stage 2 | ||||
12 stage 3 | |||||
Maly et al., 2010 | n = 492 Latina | * M = 50.8 years, SD = 9.5 | Not provided | *M = 180 days, SD = 20.8 | * 377 women < High School |
n = 54 Black | 534 women ≥ High School | ||||
n = 292 non-Latina White | |||||
n = 68 Asian/Pacific Islander | |||||
n = 15 Other | |||||
Maly et al., 2008 | n = 99 Latina | * M = 68.7 years, SD = 8.5 | *Only 8% of sample had greater than stage 2 | * M = 8.20 months, SD = 2.7 | 51.5% of Latinas < 20 K |
n = 66 Black | 10.9% of Whites < 20 K | ||||
n = 92 non-Latina White | No significant differences between ethnic groups | No significant differences between racial/ethnic groups | Latinas reported significantly lower income than non-Latina Whites | ||
Yoon et al., 2008 | n = 103 Latina English speaker | *n = 416 Age 50–59 | *173 women in situ | * M = 223 days after diagnosis | *288 women < 20 K |
n = 104 Latina Spanish speaker | n = 198 Age 60–64 | 487 women stage 1 | 244 women 20 K–39 K | ||
n = 112 Black | n = 349 Age 65–74 | 368 women stage 2 | 687 women 40 K+ | ||
n = 834 non-Latina White | n = 256 Age 75–99 | 50 women stage 3 | |||
n = 66 Other | 19 women stage 4 | ||||
122 women unknown stage |
Author | Analyses of Data | Measures or Interview Topics | Results Summary |
---|---|---|---|
Ashing-Giwa et al., 2004 | Qualitative | Fear and anxiety, body image, intimate relationships. | Latinas and Asian Americans discussed how their feelings about their body affected their QOL. Latinas discussed feeling embarrassed, sad, frustrated, ugly, and incomplete. Regarding the major theme of overall stress/effect of breast cancer, Blacks, Asians, and Latinas reported decrements in QOL whereas non-Latina Whites emphasized positive aspects. Latinas emphasized deleterious treatment side effects. |
Ashing-Giwa et al., 2007 | Quantitative | FACT-G (all subscales) | Latinas were significantly lower on physical, social, emotional, and functional quality of life on FACT-G than non-Latina Whites, Blacks, and Asian Americans. After controlling for covariates, analysis on the FACT-G summary score indicated that ethnic differences were no longer significant. Latinas were significantly lower on SF-36 role limitation and emotional well-being compared to all other groups of women. |
Cross-sectional | Rand/SF-36 (Role Limitation/Emotional Well-being) | ||
Ashing Giwa et al., 2009 | Quantitative | SF-36 (Physical and Mental) | Latina ethnicity was significantly related to poorer Mental Health on the SF-36; this disparity was no longer significant when job type and stress were entered into the model. No significant relationship between Latina ethnicity and physical health QOL. |
Cross-sectional | |||
Lim et al., 2008 | Quantitative | FACT-G (Emotional and Physical) | Emotional and Physical Well-being scores for Asian Americans were significantly higher than Latinas’ scores. |
Cross-sectional | |||
Bowen et al., 2007 | Quantitative | SF-36 (Physical and Mental) | Adjusting for covariates, Black women reported significantly lower impact of cancer on cognitive/mood and incontinence subscales assessing hormone-related symptoms than Latinas and Latinas reported more fear of recurrence than Black women. In a similar set of analyses examining differences in SF-36 Mental and Physical Health summary scores, also adjusting for covariates, Black women evidenced significantly lower physical functioning scores, compared with Latinas, but higher mental health scores. Two additional models were conducted with non-Latina White entered as the referent group. After controlling for covariates, no significant differences between Latinas and non-Latina Whites emerged on physical health, but Latinas evidenced significantly poorer mental health on the SF-36. Latinas did not significantly differ from non-Latina Whites on the scale to assess the social/emotional impact of breast cancer. |
Cross-sectional | Fear of Recurrence Scale | ||
Hormone-related symptoms | |||
Impact of breast cancer(Social/Emotional) | |||
Carver et al., 2003 | Quantitative | SIP (Social Activities, Recreation and Pastime Activities subscales) | Findings were similar to those of Spencer et al. (1999). Latinas reported more POMS fatigue than non-Latina Whites. Study 2 yielded no racial/ethnic differences in QOL on social disruption, fatigue, and distress. |
Cross-sectional | POMS (Fatigue subscale) | ||
*Emotional distress | |||
Petronis et al., 2003 | Quantitative | Emotional distress (CES-D, 11 items selected from Andrews and Withey SQOL 10 items selected from Carver et al., 1993) | In models controlling for covariates, Latinas indicated significantly greater distress and more social disruption than non-Latinas, but groups did not differ on the PAIS. |
Cross-sectional | SIP (Social Activities, Recreation and Pastime Activities subscales) | ||
PAIS (Sexual subscale) | |||
PCBC | |||
Spencer et al., 1999 | Quantitative | Emotional disruption (CES-D, POMS, 11 items selected from Andrews and Withey SQOL ) | After controlling for covariates, Latinas reported poorer adjustment than non-Latina White and Black women in all domains of QOL. |
Cross-sectional | SIP (Social Activities and Recreational Pastimes subscales) | ||
PAIS (Sexual relations subscale) | |||
Carver et al., 2005 | Quantitative | CES-D | Latinas had higher scores on the CES-D and SIP than non-Latinas (i.e., non-Latina Whites and Blacks). No significant differences between ethnic groups on distress (ABS/POMS) or self-rated QOL. Initial values on the two other dependent variables (SIP, CES-D) were entered simultaneously with demographic /medical factors. Latina ethnic status was not a significant predictor of change in depressive symptoms and social disruption. |
Longitudinal | ABS/POMS | ||
SIP (Social Activities, Recreation and Pastime Activities subscales) | |||
10 questions from Andrews and Withey SQOL (1976) | |||
Carver et al., 2006 | Quantitative | QLACS | Latinas reported significant elevations in negative feelings, social avoidance, distress about family’s future, and distress about recurrence compared to non-Latinas, even when covariates were controlled. Groups did not differ on cognitive impairment and fatigue subscales. |
Cross-sectional | |||
Clauser et al., 2008 | Quantitative | SF-36 (Mental and Physical) | Asians evidenced the highest physical QOL, followed by non-Latina Whites, Latinas, and Blacks. Asians evidenced the highest mental QOL, followed by non-Latina Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics. |
Cross-sectional | |||
Culver et al., 2002 | Quantitative | CES-D | After controlling for covariates, Latinas did not significantly differ on distress from non-Latinas across time points. However, between 6 and 12 months after surgery, Latinas evidenced a significant increase in distress compared to non-Latina Whites. With covariates controlled, Black women reported significantly lower depressive symptoms than Latinas. |
Longitudinal | *Distress | ||
Eversley et al., 2005 | Quantitative | CES-D | Latinas had significantly higher depressive symptoms on the CES-D and fatigue on the Piper Fatigue Scale (PFS) when compared to Black and non-Latina White women. Latinas also evidenced higher rates of pain on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and lymphedema-related swelling (measured by a single item) when compared to non-Latina White women. Latina ethnic status remained a correlate of total number of post-treatment symptoms even when covariates were controlled. |
Cross-sectional | PFS | ||
BPI | |||
Lymphedema-related Swelling | |||
Fatone et al., 2007 | Qualitative | Physical, Social/Functional, Psychological, Sexual, Cognitive, Existential | The primary domain of concern for the Latinas was psychological, whereas the primary domain of concern for Black women was physical. Main psychological themes for Latinas were sadness, crying, anxiety, and irritability. In descending order of importance, the remaining areas of concern for Latinas were physical, social/functional, spiritual/existential, cognitive, and sexual. |
Fobair et al., 2005 | Quantitative | MOS (Sexual Problems) | After controlling for covariates, multiple regression analysis indicated significantly fewer sexual problems among Latinas compared to non-Latina White women. |
Cross-sectional | |||
Friedman et al., 2006 | Quantitative | FACT-G (Emotional, Functional, Social/Family subscales) | No significant differences for race/ethnicity on QOL. |
Cross-sectional | IES (Intrusions) | Latinas, non-Latina Whites, and Blacks did not differ significantly on any of the measures. | |
POMS-SF (all 6 subscales) | |||
Fu et al., 2009 | Quantitative | MSAS-SF (Depression, Hormone-related Symptoms, Pain-related Symptoms, Chemotherapy-related Symptoms) | Latinas had more chemotherapy- and pain-related symptoms on the Memorial Symptoms Assessment Scale Short Form than non-Latina Whites when controlling for covariates. No significant ethnic differences emerged on the other areas of QOL. |
Cross-sectional | |||
Giedzinska et al., 2004 | Quantitative | SF-36 (all subscales), CARES (Sexual Dysfunction, Sexual Interest, Body Image subscales) | Black women reported significantly higher SF-36 Emotional Well-Being than Latinas, even after covariates were controlled for. No significant differences on the other SF-36 scales were reported. Mean differences in sexual dysfunction were not significant; however, when covariates were controlled, Black women evidenced less sexual dysfunction than Latinas. Black women reported higher Mental Health on the SF-36 than Latinas, even after controlling for covariates. Latinas scored higher than any other ethnic group on symptoms related to breast cancer treatment (BCPT summary score). After controlling for covariates, Latinas did not significantly differ on the BCPT from non-Latina Whites but remained higher than Black and Asian American women. No significant differences for Latinas emerged on the CES-D and Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale. |
Cross-sectional | BCPT | ||
CES-D | |||
DAS | |||
Janz et al., 2009 | Quantitative | FACT-B (Physical, Emotional, Functional, Social/Family, Breast Concerns) | Low-acculturated and high-acculturated Latinas reported significantly lower physical well-being and more breast-specific concerns than non-Latina White women. Low-acculturated Latinas also reported significantly lower scores on functional well-being, emotional well-being, and social well-being compared to non-Latina Whites, who did not differ from high-acculturated Latinas. In the final model which included all covariates, Latinas low in acculturation reported significantly lower functional well-being and emotional well-being than non-Latina Whites, and more breast-specific concerns than non-Latina Whites, but did not significantly differ on physical and social well-being. Low-acculturated Latinas reported lower levels of functional and emotional well-being than Latinas high in acculturation and Black women. |
Cross-sectional | |||
Maly et al., 2010 | Quantitative | *Self-reported symptoms and self-reported symptom resolution (nausea/vomiting, pain, depressive symptoms) | In analyses controlling for covariates, both less-acculturated and more-acculturated Latinas were significantly more likely to report having experienced nausea than non-Latina Whites. Less acculturated Latinas were significantly less likely to report having experienced pain than non-Latina White women. Latinas did not significantly differ from non-Latina Whites on depressive symptoms. Less-acculturated Latinas were significantly less likely to perceive depressive symptom resolution than non-Latina White women in the unadjusted and adjusted models. Latinas were less likely that non-Latina Whites to perceive pain resolution; however, no differences emerged on the resolution of nausea or pain in the adjusted models. |
Cross-sectional | |||
Maly et al., 2008 | Quantitative | SF-36 (all subscales) | Latinas reported poorer QOL compared to non-Latina Whites. With control variables entered in the structural equation model, non-Latina ethnic status was directly associated with better QOL. |
Cross-sectional | CES-D | ||
STAI | |||
Breast Cancer Specific Anxiety | |||
Yoon et al., 2008 | Quantitative | * Physical symptoms (nausea/vomiting, difficulty sleeping, arm problems, vaginal dryness, hot flashes) | After controlling for covariates, Spanish-speaking Latinas were approximately 60% less likely to report having any severe cancer-related symptoms than non-Latina White women, who did not differ from English-speaking Latinas. English-speaking Latinas were significantly less likely to report hot flashes and that Spanish-speaking Latinas were significantly less likely to report difficulty sleeping than non-Latina Whites. |
Cross-sectional |