Archives

  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2021-03
  • in MYCaW Score and Concern Score Which is

    2019-11-11

    .0001 in MYCaW Score and Concern Score, Which is Depicted by **** in Graphs, and P [ .002 in Well-being Score, Which is Depicted by *** in Graph)
    Abbreviation: MYCaW ¼ Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing.
    Discussion
    On average, our results show statistically significant improve-ments in both groups: 42.4% in the MYCaW score, 41.2% in the well-being scores, and 44.2% in the concern scores highlighted by patients. Results for the breast cancer group seemed to be more substantial than for the NBC group (MYCaW score, 46.8% vs. 40.0%; Well-being, 43.4% vs. 37.8%; Concern, 46.2% vs. 41.4%, for the breast cancer and NBC groups, respectively); however, on comparative analysis between both groups, the improvement in MYCaW score, well-being, and concern was not significantly different between the breast cancer and NBC groups. Although it can be seen that the majority of patients found reflexology beneficial in some way, albeit via a small study, it is noted that those with poor Sevoflurane levels, sleep problems, stress and tension, and hot flushes and sweats experienced the most improvement in their concerns.
    Our findings are in line with Sharp et al who performed a randomized controlled trial of 183 women 6 weeks after breast surgery in 2010. They were randomized to 3 groups: Self-initiated support (SIS), SIS plus reflexology, or SIS plus scalp massage. Using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-B), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Mood Rating Scale (MRS), they found reflexology and massage to significantly relax patients compared with controls, with reflex-ology patients being more relaxed than patients being massaged in the longer run (24 weeks). Furthermore, reflexology was found to score higher on functional well-being than the control group.10
    The same group also looked at the alterations in Th1/Th2 bal-ance in those 183 patients in a different paper to find a mecha-nistic link between reflexology and improved symptoms. The study showed significantly higher CD25(þ) in the reflexology and scalp massage group compared with the SIS group. The T helper cells expressing IL4 decreased significantly in the massage group compared with the SIS group, which was accompanied by an in-crease in the percentage of CD8(þ) T cytotoxic cells expressing IFNg in the massage group, reflecting positive alternations in immunologic balance by either of the following forms of massage: reflexology or scalp massage.11
    A systematic review was performed by Kim et al in 2010 and looked at the randomized clinical trial by Sharp et al and 3 non-randomized controlled clinical trials. They found that reflexology showed beneficial effects on nausea, vomiting, and pain; however, they felt that more studies were needed.12 Following from this, a multicenter longitudinal randomized clinical trial was performed by Wyatt et al in 2012. They randomized 385 women to 3 groups: reflexology (n ¼ 95), lay foot manipulation (n ¼ 95), or conven-tional care (n ¼ 96), and found significantly enhanced physical functioning in the reflexology group compared with the control group and significantly decreased dyspnea compared with the con-trol and lay foot manipulation group. There were, however, no differences seen in breast cancer-specific health-related quality of life, depressive symptomatology, state anxiety, pain, and nausea.13 More recently, a study from Tel Aviv looked at the effects of
    Table 2 Percentage Improvement in Super Categories With Reflexology Intervention in Patients Without Breast Cancer
    No. Concerns Raised in
    MYCaW SupercategoryeNBC Group Super Category (n [ 34) Percentage Improvement, %