OBJECTIVE: • To investigate patient-to-patient communication with regard to decision-making in localized prostate cancer; as most of it is done in private, online support groups are a unique means for this task. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • Over a 32-month period, we screened 501 threads in the largest German online support group for prostate cancer. • Threads started by questioners newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and stating decision-making as the key topic were included; in all, 82 (16.4%) threads met these criteria. • Two independent investigators characterized every thread following a standardized protocol. • Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whitney U-test were applied for group analyses. A complementary qualitative linguistic approach was chosen. RESULTS: • Threads were most commonly started to ask for therapy recommendations (66%), information on the course of treatment (46%) and emotional support (46%). • Answers consisted of treatment recommendations (40%), emotional support (37%) and personal experiences (28%). • A second opinion on the biopsy cores (51%) and additional imaging (40%) were common suggestions. • The rate of advice for radical prostatectomy (RP) vs radiotherapy was 67 vs 82%. Thus, surgery was less recommended in our sample (P = 0.01); 75% of the men with an initial therapeutic preference were finally confirmed herein. • Linguistic analysis showed that posters frequently use a tentative language style and that common language is avoided. CONCLUSIONS: • Patients readily receive information, advice and emotional support as part of an online support group. • The scientific evaluation of an online support group is a complementary way of getting to know our patients' needs and worries. • Patient-physician contact can benefit from this knowledge.
OBJECTIVE: • To investigate patient-to-patient communication with regard to decision-making in localized prostate cancer; as most of it is done in private, online support groups are a unique means for this task. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • Over a 32-month period, we screened 501 threads in the largest German online support group for prostate cancer. • Threads started by questioners newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and stating decision-making as the key topic were included; in all, 82 (16.4%) threads met these criteria. • Two independent investigators characterized every thread following a standardized protocol. • Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whitney U-test were applied for group analyses. A complementary qualitative linguistic approach was chosen. RESULTS: • Threads were most commonly started to ask for therapy recommendations (66%), information on the course of treatment (46%) and emotional support (46%). • Answers consisted of treatment recommendations (40%), emotional support (37%) and personal experiences (28%). • A second opinion on the biopsy cores (51%) and additional imaging (40%) were common suggestions. • The rate of advice for radical prostatectomy (RP) vs radiotherapy was 67 vs 82%. Thus, surgery was less recommended in our sample (P = 0.01); 75% of the men with an initial therapeutic preference were finally confirmed herein. • Linguistic analysis showed that posters frequently use a tentative language style and that common language is avoided. CONCLUSIONS: • Patients readily receive information, advice and emotional support as part of an online support group. • The scientific evaluation of an online support group is a complementary way of getting to know our patients' needs and worries. • Patient-physician contact can benefit from this knowledge.
Authors: Johannes Huber; Tanja Muck; Philipp Maatz; Bastian Keck; Paul Enders; Imad Maatouk; Andreas Ihrig Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: B Hadaschik; S Pahernik; C Grüllich; H Sültmann; D Jäger; C von Kalle; S Duensing; M Hohenfellner Journal: Urologe A Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Yannick Lippka; Oliver Patschan; Tilmann Todenhöfer; Christian Schwentner; Andreas Gutzeit; Axel S Merseburger; Marcus Horstmann Journal: Springerplus Date: 2013-09-08
Authors: Wellam F Yu Ko; John L Oliffe; Christina S Han; Bernie Garrett; Tim Henwood; Anthony G Tuckett; Armin Sohrevardi Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 2016 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.592
Authors: Andreas Ihrig; I Maatouk; H C Friederich; M Baunacke; C Groeben; R Koch; C Thomas; J Huber Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 1.771
Authors: Frances Griffiths; Tim Dobermann; Jonathan A K Cave; Margaret Thorogood; Samantha Johnson; Kavé Salamatian; Francis X Gomez Olive; Jane Goudge Journal: Policy Internet Date: 2015-09-01