Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:28:59.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing the information and support needs of radical prostate cancer patients and acceptability of a group-based treatment review: a questionnaire and qualitative interview study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2018

Munisha Chauhan ,
Patricia Holch  and
Catherine Holborn
Munisha Chauhan
Affiliation:
Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James’s Institute of Oncology, Bexley Wing, St James’s Hospital, Leeds, UK
Patricia Holch*
Affiliation:
Psychology Group, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK Patient Centered Outcomes Research Group, Leeds Institute of Cancer Studies and Pathology, University of Leeds, Bexley Wing, St James’s Hospital, UK
Catherine Holborn
Affiliation:
Allied Health Department, Faculty of Health & Wellbeing, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK
*
Correspondence to: Patricia Holch, Leeds Beckett University Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Room 815 Calverley Building, City Campus, West Yorkshire, LS1 3HE, UK. Tel: +004407506751960. E-mail: t.holch@leedsbeckett.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aims

Current literature suggests the information and support needs of oncology patients undergoing radical radiotherapy to the prostate often remain unmet and can impact quality of life. We aimed to explore the effectiveness of delivery and opportunities for service improvement, including a group-based treatment review.

Methods

A total of 60 prostate patients completing radical radiotherapy (mean age 70, range 47–79) in a UK cancer-centre completed a self-designed questionnaire assessing information and support. To explore views on a group-based treatment review, 11% took part in a semi-structured interview. Descriptive data were computed and interviews transcribed and analysed thematically.

Results

In all, 87% were satisfied with information and support when delivered by radiographers. However, 26% were only ‘sometimes’ able to complete bladder-filling, suggesting information regarding treatment delays would improve this. In total, 49% preferred both Doctor and Urology nurse reviews whereas 26% preferred nurse only; 70% stated their ‘concerns were always addressed’ by a nurse and 49% by a Doctor. Interviews revealed that a group review was generally acceptable with peer support an influencing factor.

Findings

Overall patients felt their needs were being met. Suggestions for improvement (more information on preparation, side effects and delays) will be implemented locally. Future work will explore the feasibility of group reviews in patients undergoing radical radiotherapy to the prostate.

Keywords

group reviewinformation & supportprostate cancerradiotherapy
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 151 - 161
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Prostate Cancer: Diagnosis and Treatment. London: NICE, 2008.Google Scholar
2. Viani, G A, Rossi, B T, Suguikawa, E, Zuliani, G, Stefano, E J. Treatment outcomes with hypofractionated high-dose radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2016; 21 (3): 172–177.Google Scholar
3. Andreyev, H J, Wotherspoon, A, Denham, J W, Hauer-Jensen, M, Hauer-Jensen, M. Pelvic radiation disease”: new understanding and new solutions for a new disease in the era of cancer survivorship. Scand J Gastroenterol 2011; 46 (4): 389–397.Google Scholar
4. Boledras, A, Santora, L, Gutierrez, C et al External beam radiotherapy plus single fraction high dose rate brachytherapy in the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2014; 112: 227–232.Google Scholar
5. Lehto, U S, Helanders, S, Taari, K, Aromaa, A. Patient experiences at diagnosis and psychological well-being in prostate cancer: a Finnish national survey. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2015; 19 (30): 220–229.Google Scholar
6. Bekelman, J E, Zelefsky, M J, Jang, T L, Basch, E M, Schrag, D. Variation in adherence to external beam radiotherapy quality measures among elderly men with localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 69 (5): 1456–1466.Google Scholar
7. Wootten, A C, Abbott, J M, Meyer, D et al. Preliminary results of a randomised controlled trial of an online psychological intervention to reduce distress in men treated for localised prostate cancer. J Euro Urol 2015; 68 (3): 471–479.Google Scholar
8. Owens, J, White, KA. How was it for you? Men, prostate cancer and radiotherapy. J Radiother Pract 2003; 3 (4): 167–174.Google Scholar
9. Rüesch, P, Schaffert, R, Fischer, S et al. Information needs of early-stage prostate cancer patient: within-and between-group agreement of patients and health professionals. Support Care Cancer 2014; 22 (4): 999–1007.Google Scholar
10. Ream, E, Quennell, A, Fincham, L et al. Supportive care needs of men living with prostate cancer in England: a survey. Brit J Cancer 2008; 98 (12): 1903–1909.Google Scholar
11. Boberg, E W, Gustafson, D H, Hawkins, R P. Assessing unmet information, support and care delivery needs of men with prostate cancer. Pat Edu Couns 2003; 49: 233–242.Google Scholar
12. Cockle-Hearne, J, Charnay-Sonnek, F, Denis, L et al. The impact of supportive nursing care on the needs of men with prostate cancer: a study across seven European Countries. Brit J Cancer 2013; 109 (8): 2121–2130.Google Scholar
13. Ulla-Sisko, L, Helander, S, Taari, K, Aromma, A. Patient experiences at diagnosis and psychological well-being in prostate cancer: a Finnish National Survey. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2015; 19 (3): 220–229.Google Scholar
14. Chien, C H, Lui, H T, Lui, H E. The effect of psychological strategies on anxiety and depression of patients diagnosed with prostate cancer: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 2014; 51: 28–38.Google Scholar
15. Öster, I, Hedestig, O, Johansson, M, Klingstedt, N, Lindh, J. Sharing experiences in support group: men’s talk during the radiotherapy period for prostate cancer. Palliat Support Care 2013; 11 (4): 331–339.Google Scholar
16. Jones, J M, Cheng, T, Jackman, M et al. Getting back on track: evaluation of a brief group psycho-education intervention for women completing primary treatment for breast cancer. Psychooncology 2013; 22 (1): 117–124.Google Scholar
17. Albutt, K A, Wem, L, Copeland, L, Gardner, P H, Velikova, P, Holch, P et al. Individual-based vs. group-based psychoeducation sessions for breast cancer survivors following radiotherapy (RT): impact on health-related quality of life and self-efficacy. Psychooncology 2015; 24 ((suppl 1): 1–2.Google Scholar
18. Department of Health. Living with and beyond cancer: taking into action to improve outcomes. National cancer survivorship Initiative 2010. http://cdn.basw.co.uk/upload/basw_112736-5.pdf. Accessed on 3rd May 2015.Google Scholar
19. National Radiotherapy Advisory Group. Radiotherapy: developing a world class service for England report 2007. http://www.axrem.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/RESOURCE-DH_Radiotheraphy_developing_first_class_service_NRAG.pdf. Accessed on 15th March 2015.Google Scholar
20. Mathers, N, Fox, N, Hunn, A.. Surveys and questionnaires. Yorkshire and the Humber. The NIHR Research and Design Service for the East Midlands 2009. https://www.rds-yh.nihr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/12_Surveys_and_Questionnaires_Revision_2009.pdf. Accessed on 15th March 2015.Google Scholar
21. Department of Health. Governance arrangements for research ethics committees: a harmonised edition 2012. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213753/dh_133993.pdf. Accessed on 3rd May 2015.Google Scholar
22.Data Protection Act 1998. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29. Accessed on 15th March 2015.Google Scholar
23.General Medical Council Good Clinical Practice guidelines in research 2013. http://www.gmc-uk.org/static/documents/content/legal_annexes_FINAL.pdf. Accessed on 15th March 2015.Google Scholar
24. Ritchie, J, Spencer, L, Bryman, A, Burgess, R G. Qualitative Data Analysis for Applied Research. Analyzing Qualitative Data. London, New York: Routledge,, 1994.Google Scholar
25. Sinfield, P, Baker, R, Agrawal, S, Tarrant, C. Patient-centred care: What are the experiences of prostate cancer patients and their partners? Patient Edu Couns 2008; 73: 91–96.Google Scholar
26. Flynn, D, Van Schaik, P, Van Wersch, A et al. The utility of a multimedia education program for prostate cancer patients: a formative evaluation. Brit J Cancer 2004; 91 (5): 855–860.Google Scholar
27. Sulé-suso, J, Finney, S, Bisson, J et al. Pilot study on virtual imaging for patient information on radiotherapy planning and delivery. Radiography 2015; 21 (3): 273–277.Google Scholar
28. Long, D, Friedrich-Nel, HS, Joubert, G. Patients’ informational needs while undergoing brachytherapy for cervical cancer. Int J Qual Health Care 2016; 28 (2): 200–208.Google Scholar
29 Wallace, M, Storms, S. The needs of men with prostate cancer: result of a focus group study. Appl Nur Res 2007; 20 (4): 181–187.Google Scholar
30. Wells, M, Donnan, P T, Sharp, L, Ackland, C, Fletcher, J, Dewar, J A A. A study to evaluate nurse-led on-treatment review for patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. J Clin Nurs 2006; 17 (11): 1428–1439.Google Scholar
31. Rees, C E, Ford, J E, Sheard, C E. Patient information leaflets for prostate cancer: which leaflets should healthcare professionals recommend? Patient Edu Couns 2003; 49 (3): 263–272.Google Scholar
32. Oliffe, J L, Han, C S, Lohan, M, Bottorf, J L. Repackaging prostate cancer support group research findings: an e-KT case study. Am J Mens Health 2015; 9 (1): 53–63.Google Scholar
33. Holch, P, Warrington, L, Bamforth, LCA et al. Development of an integrated electronic platform for patient self-report and management of adverse event during cancer treatment. Ann Oncol 2017; 28 (9): 2305–2311.Google Scholar
34. Holch, P, Davidson, S, Routledge, J et al. eRAPID: Electronic self-report and management of adverse-events for radical prostate radiotherapy (RT) patients. Radioth & Oncol 2015; 115 (suppl 1): 3.Google Scholar