PURPOSE
This study was to investigate symptom occurrence related to the disease characteristics of patients with cancer.
METHOD
A total of 301 patients with cancer participated in this study. The participants were recruited from University Hospitals located in Seoul, Wonju, Kwangju, Daegu, and Pusan. Data collection was performed by using a questionnaire on symptom occurrence. The obtained data was analyzed using SPSS computer program that included descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, one-way ANOVA, and t-test. 1) Yonsei University (Wonju College of Medicine) 2) Ajou University 3) Home Health-Hospice Research Institute at Yonsei University 4) Research Institute of Nursing Science at Chonnam National University 5) The Institute of Nursing Science at Kyungpook National University 6) Research Institute of Wholistic Nursing Science at Kosin University.
RESULT
The mean score of fatigue was the highest (3.24), followed by loss of appetite, lack of concentration, change in appearance, pain, insomnia, change in bowel pattern, nausea/ vomiting, coughing, and dyspnea. Most symptoms were significantly correlated with each other. The level of symptom occurrence in patients with lung cancer or cervix cancer was significantly higher than the level in patients with stomach cancer. Patients receiving radiation therapy or a combined therapy of radiation therapy and chemotherapy experienced significantly higher level of symptom occurrence than those receiving chemotherapy only. Also, female patients experienced higher level of symptom occurrence than male patients did.
CONCLUSION
The sites of cancer, types of treatment, and gender influence the level of symptom occurrence of patients with cancer. Thus, these variables should be considered when assessing and planing for symptom occurrence of patients with cancer.

This study was undertaken to develop an instrument to be used for measuring the concept of quality of life of Korean patients with cancer multidimensionary and correctly. It can contribute in holistic nursing care for Korean cancer patients and also provide and validate basic data to help oncology nurses measure the outcome of nursing intervention correctly. To develop this instrument, the researchers first estabilished a conceptual framework based on the results of qualitative data analysis and indepth interview method Development of the scale was conducted using a method in which 31 items were assessed by subjects' self report using linear analogue scales. The subjects were 79 D.M. patients, 103 patients with acute illness, and 91 cancer patients residing in Busan, Korea. Data were collected during the period from July, 24 to August 14, 2000. This instrument consisted of 31 items with a self report scale. This instrument covered 4 dimensions of cancer patients : 1) physical wellbeing 2) psychological wellbeing 3) social wellbeing and 4)spiritual wellbeing. Each item had a possible score of 10. The reliability of the scale was tested with Cronbach's alpha. Validity was evaluated by examining the relationships of this scale, Youn's Quality of Life Questionnare scores and the Simple Quality of Life scale. Two separate runs of multiple regression were used to predict scores on the Simple Quality of Life measurement. Further validation was obtained by examining the correlation between the instrument subscores and Youn's Quality of Life measurement subscore for convergence of this scale. Examination of the discriminant. power of the instrument was done using ANOVA test. The results are summarized as follows: 1. The reliability of the instrument for the quality of life was 0.8321(Cronbach's alpha.), physical wellbeing dimension 0.6343, psychological wellbeing dimension 0.6501, spiritual wellbeing dimension 0.5883. 2. This instrument had a high correlation with Youn's Quality of Life measurement(r= 0.636) in cancer patients, whereas it had a low correlation with Simple Quality of Life measurement(r=0.455) in cancer patients. In the D.M. patients, the instrument correlated with both the Youn's Quality of Life measurement and Simple Quality of life measurement(r=0.313, r= 0.407) and in the acute stage patients, the instrument had no correlation. 3.Multiple regression of individual items on the Simple Quality of Life scores accounted for 56.8% of the variance in the Simple Quality of Life measurement, whereas, Youn's Quality of Life measurement scores accounts for 31.7%. 4. The correlations collected from the three group had the same patterns of variations but especially the instrument developed in this study had higher disciminant power than that of Youn's Quality of Life Measurement.