Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T15:56:17.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A qualitative focus group study to explore the information, support and communication needs of women receiving adjuvant radiotherapy for primary breast cancer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2010

J.A. Hendry
J.A. Hendry*
Affiliation:
Kingston University and St George's, University of London, London, UK
*
Correspondence to: Julie Hendry, MSc, Senior Lecturer School of Radiography Kingston University and St George’s University of London Penrhyn Road, Kingston, Surrey KT1 2EE, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to explore the patient’s experience of the radiotherapy pathway with a view to improving patient-centred services.

Methods: Women’s views about the radiotherapy pathway were gathered through a focus group. Focus groups have been used extensively in qualitative research to gather rich meaningful data. A thematic analysis of the transcript identified areas of importance for the women, which could be used to direct service improvement.

Results: Five main themes emerged: information, communication and support, dignity and individualised care, service accessibility and staff relationships. Generally, staff were viewed as professionals and the radiotherapy service well run although women did identify several unmet needs during radiotherapy. Lack of information and perceived time constraints of busy staff was revealed. However women did feel treated with dignity, respect and as individuals. ‘End-of-treatment’ was a particular focus; women felt dedicated time with staff would enable discussion, information giving and support around this vulnerable time. In addition, women felt that communication barriers and time constraints influenced the information and support they experienced during radiotherapy.

Conclusion: The use of a focus group enabled service users to identify clear areas for improvement at a local level. Priorities include information, communication and support and the ‘end-of-treatment’.

Keywords

Radiotherapybreast cancer supportunmet needsfocus groups
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 103 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/breast/incidence (accessed December 2008)Google Scholar
Maddams, J, Brewster, D, Gavin, A, Steward, J, Elliott, J, Utley, M, Møller, H. Cancer prevalence in the United Kingdom: estimates for 2008. Br J Cancer 2009; 101:541–547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferlay, J, Autier, P, Boniol, M, Heanue, M, Colombet, M, Boyle, P. Estimates of the cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2006. Ann Oncol 2007; 18:581–592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Improving outcomes in breast cancer - Manual update. Guidance on Cancer Services 2002; London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence.Google Scholar
Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) Effects of radiotherapy and differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 2005; 366:2087–2106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Great Britain. Department of Health The NHS Cancer Plan 2000. London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Great Britain. Department of Health Calman-Hine Report: A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services 1995. London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Great Britain. Department of Health NHS Improvement Plan—Putting People in the Heart of Public Services 2004. London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Great Britain. Department of Health. Creating a Patient— Led NHS—Delivering the NHS Improvement Plan 2005. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Breast Cancer Care, Breakthrough Breast Cancer. What Breast Cancer Patients Want from a World Class Radiotherapy Service, 2005, London.Google Scholar
Royal College of Radiologists. Making your radiotherapy service more patient friendly 2007. London (accessed online November 2008 http://www.rcr.ac.uk/docs/oncology/pdf/COPLG_web.pdf).Google Scholar
Great Britain. Department of Health. The NHS Plan 2000. London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Great Britain. Department of Health. Cancer Reform Strategy 2007. London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Jenkins, V, Fallowfield, L, Saul, J. Information needs of patients with cancer: results from a large study in UK cancer centres. Br J Cancer 2001; 84:48–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meredith, C, Symonds, P, Webster, L, Lamont, D, Pyper, E, Gillis, CR, Fallowfield, L. Information needs of cancer patients in west Scotland: cross sectional survey of patients’ views. BMJ 1996; 313:724–726.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cox, A, Jenkins, V, Catt, S, Langridge, C, Fallowfield, L. Information needs and experiences: an audit of UK cancer patients. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2006; 10:263–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arraras, JI, Wright, S, Greimel, E, Holzner, B, Kuljanic-Vlasic, K, Velikova, G, Eisemann, M, Visser, A; EORTC Quality of Life Group. Development of a questionnaire to evaluate the information needs of cancer patients: the EORTC questionnaire. Patient Educ Couns 2004; 54:235–241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mesters, I, van den Borne, B, De Boer, M, Pruyn, J. Measuring information needs among cancer patients. Patient Educ Couns 2001; 43:253–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halkett, GK, Kristjanson, LJ. Validity and reliability testing of two instruments to measure breast cancer patients’ concerns and information needs relating to radiation therapy. Radiat Oncol 2007; 2:43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halkett, G, Arbon, P, Scutter, S, Borg, M. The breast cancer patient’s experience of making radiation therapy treatment decisions. Radiographer 2005; 52:17–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Great Britain. Department of Health. High Quality Care for All NHS Next Stage Review Final Report 2008. London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Halkett, G, Kristjanson, L. Validity and reliability testing of two instruments to measure breast cancer patients’ concerns and information needs relating to radiation therapy. Radiat Oncol 2007; 2:43–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rees, C, Bath, P. The information needs and source preferences of women with breast cancer and their family members: a review of the literature published between 1988–98. J Adv Nurs 2000; 31:833–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanson-Fisher, R, Girgis, A, Boyes, A, Bonevski, B, Burton, L, Cook, P. The unmet supportive care needs of patients with cancer. Cancer 2000; 88:226–237.3.0.CO;2-P>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Booth, L. The radiographer-patient relationship: Enhancing understanding using a transactional analysis approach. Radiography 2008; 14:323–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Great Britain. Department of Health. The NHS Knowledge and Skills Framework (NHS KSF) and the Development Review Process 2004. London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Cartmell, R, Coles, A. Informed choice in cancer pain: empowering the patient. Br J Commun Nurs 2000; 5:560–564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fallowfield, L. Participation of patients in decisions about treatment for cancer. BMJ 2001; 323:1144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mallinger, J, Griggs, JJ, Shields, C. Patient-centred care and breast cancer survivors’ satisfaction with information. Patient Educ Couns 2005; 57:342–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, D. Dignity and respect for dignity—two key health professional values: implications for nursing practice. Nurs Ethics 2005; 11:587–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Society of Radiographers. Code of Conduct and Ethics 2008. London (accessed online November 2008 http://doc-lib.sor.org/node/114/pdf/?a=1).Google Scholar
Great Britain. Department of Health. Good practice in consent implementation guide: consent to examination or treatment 2001. London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Great Britain. Department of Health Confidentiality: NHS Code of Practice 2003. London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Freeman, T. Best Practice’ in focus group research: making sense of different views. J Adv Nurs 2006; 56:491–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pope, C, Ziebland, S, Mays, N. Qualitative research in health care: analysing qualitative data. BMJ 2000; 320:114–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, R, Casey, M. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 4th edn, London: Sage, 2009.Google Scholar
Halkett, G. Kristjanson, L. Patient’s perspectives on the role of radiation therapists. Patient Educ Couns 2007; 69:76–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nazareth, I, Jones, L, Irving, A, Aslett, H, Ramsay, A, Richardson, A, Tookman, A, Mason, C, King, M. Perceived concepts of continuity of care in people with colorectal and breast cancer—a qualitative case study analysis. Eur J Cancer Care 2008; 17:569–577.Google ScholarPubMed
Halkett, G, Short, M, Kristjanson, L. How do radiation oncology health professionals inform breast cancer patients about the medical and technical aspects of their treatment? Radiother Oncol 2009; 90:153–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fallowfield, L, Jenkins, V, Farewell, V, Saul, J, Duffy, A, Eves, R. Efficacy of a cancer research UK communication skills training model for oncologists: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2002; 359:650–656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, S, Kristjanson, L, Williams, A. Professional relationships in palliative care decision making. Support Cancer Care 2009; 17:445–450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed