Clinicians' and Patients' Perceptions and Use of the Word "Cured" in Cancer Care: An Italian Survey.
categorisation
cured
survivorship
Journal
Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.)
ISSN: 1718-7729
Titre abrégé: Curr Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 9502503
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 01 2023
17 01 2023
Historique:
received:
12
12
2022
revised:
13
01
2023
accepted:
14
01
2023
entrez:
24
2
2023
pubmed:
25
2
2023
medline:
3
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The words "hope" and "cure" were used in a greater number of articles and sentences in narrative and editorial papers than in primary research. Despite concomitant improvements in cancer outcomes, the related reluctance to use these terms in more scientifically oriented original reports may reflect a bias worthy of future exploration. This study aims to survey a group of physicians and cancer patients regarding their perception and use of the word cure. An anonymous online and print survey was conducted to explore Italian clinicians' (the sample includes medical oncologists, radiotherapists, and oncological surgeons) and cancer patients' approach to the perception and use of the word "cure" in cancer care. The participants received an email informing them of the study's purpose and were invited to participate in the survey via a linked form. A portion, two-thirds, of questionnaires were also administered to patients in the traditional paper form. The survey was completed by 224 clinicians (54 oncologists, 78 radiotherapists, and 92 cancer surgeons) and 249 patients. The results indicate a favourable attitude for patients in favour of a new language ("cured" vs. "complete remission") of the disease experience. The use of the word cured is substantially accepted and equally shared by doctors and patients. Its use can facilitate the elimination of metaphoric implications and toxic cancer-related connotations registered in all cultures that discourage patients from viewing cancer as a disease with varied outcomes, including cure.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The words "hope" and "cure" were used in a greater number of articles and sentences in narrative and editorial papers than in primary research. Despite concomitant improvements in cancer outcomes, the related reluctance to use these terms in more scientifically oriented original reports may reflect a bias worthy of future exploration. This study aims to survey a group of physicians and cancer patients regarding their perception and use of the word cure.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
An anonymous online and print survey was conducted to explore Italian clinicians' (the sample includes medical oncologists, radiotherapists, and oncological surgeons) and cancer patients' approach to the perception and use of the word "cure" in cancer care. The participants received an email informing them of the study's purpose and were invited to participate in the survey via a linked form. A portion, two-thirds, of questionnaires were also administered to patients in the traditional paper form.
RESULTS
The survey was completed by 224 clinicians (54 oncologists, 78 radiotherapists, and 92 cancer surgeons) and 249 patients. The results indicate a favourable attitude for patients in favour of a new language ("cured" vs. "complete remission") of the disease experience.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of the word cured is substantially accepted and equally shared by doctors and patients. Its use can facilitate the elimination of metaphoric implications and toxic cancer-related connotations registered in all cultures that discourage patients from viewing cancer as a disease with varied outcomes, including cure.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36826064
pii: curroncol30020103
doi: 10.3390/curroncol30020103
pmc: PMC9955737
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1332-1353Références
Eur Urol. 2015 Jan;67(1):157-164
pubmed: 24486307
JAMA. 2012 Oct 24;308(16):1639-40
pubmed: 23093162
N Engl J Med. 1985 Jul 25;313(4):270-3
pubmed: 4010738
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2019 Nov;28(6):e13139
pubmed: 31436897
Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2015 Jul 01;8(7):8500-5
pubmed: 26339424
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jan 20;26(3):380-5
pubmed: 18202413
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Jan;15(1):23-34
pubmed: 24314615
Int J Epidemiol. 2020 Oct 1;49(5):1517-1525
pubmed: 32984907
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Oct 1;34(28):3372-4
pubmed: 27458280
BMC Cancer. 2018 Feb 9;18(1):169
pubmed: 29426306
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Jul 10;31(20):2637-8
pubmed: 23690430
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Aug;15(9):e366
pubmed: 25225690
JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2020 Aug 14;4(6):pkaa065
pubmed: 33225209
BMJ Open. 2017 Nov 22;7(11):e016797
pubmed: 29170285
Br J Cancer. 2016 May 24;114(11):1286-92
pubmed: 27070711
Eur J Cancer. 2015 Oct;51(15):2104-2119
pubmed: 26421815
J Oncol Pract. 2013 Jul;9(4):e136-40
pubmed: 23942930
Ann Oncol. 2013 Oct;24(10):2468-2471
pubmed: 23798613
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 20;32(24):2662-8
pubmed: 25071099
Cancer Manag Res. 2022 Oct 31;14:3105-3118
pubmed: 36340999
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Oct;17(10):1354-1356
pubmed: 27733259
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016 Jan;25(1):207-11
pubmed: 26483394
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Oct 20;35(30):3516-3517
pubmed: 28834437
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Nov 1;4(11):1519-1526
pubmed: 29860375