Contemporary consumer perspectives on prostate cancer survivorship: Fifty voices.
Adaptation, Psychological
Australia
/ epidemiology
Cancer Survivors
/ psychology
Communication
Cross-Sectional Studies
Humans
Male
Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
/ prevention & control
Patient Care Team
/ organization & administration
Prostatic Neoplasms
/ psychology
Self-Help Groups
Social Support
Survivorship
care coordination
guidelines
personalised care
prostate cancer
survivorship
Journal
Psycho-oncology
ISSN: 1099-1611
Titre abrégé: Psychooncology
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9214524
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2020
03 2020
Historique:
received:
08
09
2019
revised:
09
11
2019
accepted:
24
11
2019
pubmed:
17
1
2020
medline:
21
10
2020
entrez:
17
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To describe contemporary consumer experiences and priorities of prostate cancer survivorship to inform the development of survivorship guidelines. In a cross-sectional qualitative design, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with fifty prostate cancer support group leaders (50% response) across urban and rural/regional Australia. An interpretative phenomenological approach was used to identify participants' experiences and priorities of survivorship. Three themes were identified for informing the development of prostate cancer survivorship guidelines: (a) the Experience of Diagnosis and Treatment, (b) Priorities for Survivorship and (c) Mechanisms for Support. Four priorities for prostate cancer survivorship were: delivering person and men-centred care; improving communication; improving care coordination; and facilitating access to care. Mechanisms for support were as follows: advocacy; peer support; prostate cancer specialist nurses; and communication training for health professionals. The lack of progress in changing prostate cancer survivorship outcomes for men will become increasingly problematic as this patient population group grows. Co-production provides a way forward to ensure relevance and accessibility for future survivorship initiatives.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
557-563Informations de copyright
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Références
Mukherjee S. The emperor of all maladies: a biography of cancer. New York: Simon and Schuster; 2010.
The National Cancer Act. Public Law 92-218, 92nd Congress, S. 1828, Enacted December 23, 1971, Washington, United States of America. PUBLIC LAW 92-218, 92ND CONGRESS, S. 1828, DECEMBER 23, 1971.
Doyle N. Cancer survivorship: evolutionary concept analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(4):499-509.
National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship. The National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship 2019 [Available from: https://www.canceradvocacy.org/about-us/our-history/].
National Cancer Institute. Office of Cancer Survivorship-Mission 2019 [Available from: https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/ocs/about/mission.html].
Lasser T, Clarke WK. Reach to recovery. Simon & Schuster; 1972.
Reach to Recovery International. Reach to Recovery International 2019 [Available from: https://www.reachtorecoveryinternational.org/].
Dunn J, Casey C, Sandoe D, et al. Advocacy, support and survivorship in prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer Care. 2018;27(2):e12644.
Chambers SK, Dunn J, Occhipinti S, et al. A systematic review of the impact of stigma and nihilism on lung cancer outcomes. BMC Cancer. 2012;12(1):184.
Dunn J, Garvey G, Valery PC, et al. Barriers to lung cancer care: health professionals' perspectives. Support Care Cancer. 2017;25(2):497-504.
Ostrom E. Crossing the Great Divide: Coproduction, Synergy, and Development. World Dev. 1996;24(6):1073-1087.
Turakhia P, Combs B. Using Principles of Co-Production to Improve Patient Care and Enhance Value. AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(11):1125-1131.
Palumbo R. Contextualizing co-production of health care: a systematic literature review. Int J Public Sect Manag. 2016;29(1):72-90.
Armstrong MJ, Bloom JA. Patient involvement in guidelines is poor five years after institute of medicine standards: review of guideline methodologies. Res Invol engagem. 2017;3:19.
Skolarus TA, Wolf AM, Erb NL, et al. American Cancer Society prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(4):225-249.
Crawford-Williams F, March S, Goodwin BC, et al. Interventions for prostate cancer survivorship: A systematic review of reviews. Psychooncology. 2018;27(10):2339-2348.
Ralph N, Birks M, Chapman Y. The Methodological Dynamism of Grounded Theory. Int J Qual Methods. 2015;14(4):1609406915611576.
Braun V, Clarke V. Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. London: Sage; 2013.
Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349-357.
Chambers SK, Hyde MK, Smith DP, et al. A systematic review of psychological interventions for prostate cancer survivors and their partners: clinical and research implications. Psychooncology. 2017;26(7):873-913.
Smith DP, King MT, Egger S, et al. Quality of life three years after diagnosis of localised prostate cancer: population based cohort study. BMJ. 2009;b4817:339.
Smith DP, Supramaniam R, King MT, Ward J, Berry M, Armstrong BK. Age, health, and education determine supportive care needs of men younger than 70 years with prostate cancer. J Clin Onc. 2007;25(18):2560-2566.
Eton DT, Lepore SJ. Prostate cancer and quality of life: A review of the literature. Psychooncology. 2002;11:307-326.
Chambers SK, Occhipinti S, Stiller A, et al. Five-year outcomes from a randomised controlled trial of a couples-based intervention for men with localised prostate cancer. Psychooncology. 2019;28(4):775-783.
Ralph N, Chambers S, Pomery A, Oliffe J, Dunn J. Nurse-Led Supportive Care Intervention for Men With Advanced Prostate Cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2019;46(1):92-103.
Batalden M, Batalden P, Margolis P, et al. Coproduction of healthcare service. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25:509-517.
Dunston R, Lee A, Boud D, Brodie P, Chiarella M. Co-Production and Health System Reform - From Re-Imagining To Re-Making. Aust J Publ Admin. 2009;68(1):39-52.
Vennik FD, van de Bovenkamp HM, Putters K, Grit KJ. Co-production in healthcare: rhetoric and practice. Int Rev Admin Sci. 2016;82(1):150-168.
Jacobsen PB, DeRosa AP, Henderson TO, et al. Systematic Review of the Impact of Cancer Survivorship Care Plans on Health Outcomes and Health Care Delivery. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(20):2088-2100.
Spendelow JS, Eli Joubert H, Lee H, Fairhurst BR. Coping and adjustment in men with prostate cancer: a systematic review of qualitative studies. J Cancer Surviv. 2018;12(2):155-168.
Tsang VWL, Skead C, Wassersug RJ, Palmer-Hague JL. Impact of prostate cancer treatments on men's understanding of their masculinity. Psychol Men Masculin. 2019;20(2):214-225.
Occhipinti S, Laurie K, Hyde MK, et al. Measuring Masculinity in Men With Chronic Disease. American journal of men's health. 2019;13(4):1557988319859706.
Chambers SK, Hyde MK, Oliffe JL, et al. Measuring masculinity in the context of chronic disease. Psychol Men Masculin. 2016;17(3):228-242.
Goodwin BC, Ralph N, Ireland MJ, et al. The role of masculinities in psychological and emotional help-seeking by men with prostate cancer. Psychooncology. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.5264.
Oliffe JL, Rossnagel E, Bottorff JL, Chambers SK, Caperchione C, Rice SM. Community-based men's health promotion programs: eight lessons learnt and their caveats. Health Promot Int. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daz101.
Dasgupta P, Baade PD, Aitken JF, Ralph N, Chambers SK, Dunn J. Geographical variations in prostate cancer outcomes: a systematic review of international evidence. Front Oncol. 2019;9:238.