4.5 Article

The impact of cancer and chemotherapy: Perceptual similarities and differences between cancer patients, nurses and physicians

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY NURSING
Volume 12, Issue 2, Pages 97-102

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejon.2007.10.002

Keywords

psycho-oncology; disease impact; treatment impact; hair loss; chemotherapy side effects; breast cancer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: An essential condition to provide optimal care to cancer patients is a thorough understanding of the worries and needs of these patients. Purpose: To assess and compare perceptions about the impact of cancer and chemotherapy of health-care providers and patients. Methods: Breast cancer survivors (N = 80), oncology nurses (N = 41) and physicians (N = 49) with oncology experience completed a psychophysical scaling method with items tapping both the physical and psychosocial effects of cancer and chemotherapy. Results: The following five issues ranked highest among patients: fear of metastases, fatigue, consciousness of one's own vulnerability, hair loss and nausea. Whereas there was a strong correspondence between the ratings of nurses and physicians, both groups grossly overestimated and underestimated various issues. For example, the effects on relationships with partners and children were greatly overestimated by nurses, white physicians underestimated hair loss the most. Conclusions: There was a considerable discrepancy on various issues between perceptions of patients and medical professionals. Clinical implication: The observed tack of correspondence between patients and health-care providers may result in inappropriate provision of attention and health care. Methods have to be developed to assess easily the main needs and worries of individual patients, which is an essential condition to be able to provide optimal care. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available