Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Reversal in the attitude of the public and the physician alike toward the potential for rehabilitation of cancer patients is the a priori requisite without which certain improvements in cancer care cannot be fully realized. Continued use of five-year survival rates to assess treatment results is becoming an outmoded static dimension; within this limited concept we have achieved a “cure” rate of approximately only 33%. To date, negative attitudes—plus space, monetary and personnel limitations—have precluded extensive investigation into the full potential for cancer patient rehabilitation. With the proposed government-sponsored expansion of rehabilitation parameters a decrease in morbidity incidence and an increase in the “salvage for living” potential of the cancer patient become realistic possibilities. We should now look toward doubling the “cure” rate. Through the use of routine physiatric therapy subjective and objective benefits to medically treated cancer patients have been demonstrated over the past eight years at the M. D. Anderson Hospital and Tumor Institute. The physiatrist is recognized as a prime contributor in reducing morbidity incidence in cancer patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Clark et al. (1967) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: