Joanne Shaw1, Phyllis Butow, Ming Sze, Jane Young, David Goldstein. 1. Surgical Outcomes Research Centre, Sydney Local Health District & School of Public Health, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, University of Sydney, PO Box M157, Missenden Road, Sydney, New South Wales, 2050, Australia. joanne.shaw@sydney.edu.au
Abstract
PURPOSE: Australia has one of the most culturally diverse populations in the world. Immigrant cancer patients' poorer outcomes compared to English-speaking patients confirm the need for culturally sensitive supportive care interventions. The aims of this study were (1) to identify cultural sensitivities that are important to the acceptability of a telephone-based supportive care intervention and (2) to identify cultural barriers and facilitators to intervention participation. METHODS: Patients and carers attending Chinese or Arabic cancer support groups were recruited. Two focus groups comprising 12 patients and 4 carers, and two telephone interviews were conducted in the participants' own language. A semi-structured interview format was utilised to determine potential cultural sensitivities that may influence the intervention delivery format as well as patients' willingness to participate in telephone-based supportive care interventions. Content analysis confirmed similar themes across groups. RESULTS: The intervention was viewed favourably as a means of providing information and support in the patient's language. Cultural considerations included assurances of confidentiality, as cancer is not openly discussed within communities. An initial face-to-face contact was highlighted as the most important factor facilitating participation. Participants also recommended the inclusion of patient-initiated calls as part of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides cultural insights relevant to the development of a culturally sensitive telephone-based supportive care intervention for Arabic- and Chinese-speaking cancer patients. Participants highlighted the need for face-to-face contact and inclusion of patient-initiated calls as important methodological considerations.
PURPOSE: Australia has one of the most culturally diverse populations in the world. Immigrant cancerpatients' poorer outcomes compared to English-speaking patients confirm the need for culturally sensitive supportive care interventions. The aims of this study were (1) to identify cultural sensitivities that are important to the acceptability of a telephone-based supportive care intervention and (2) to identify cultural barriers and facilitators to intervention participation. METHODS:Patients and carers attending Chinese or Arabic cancer support groups were recruited. Two focus groups comprising 12 patients and 4 carers, and two telephone interviews were conducted in the participants' own language. A semi-structured interview format was utilised to determine potential cultural sensitivities that may influence the intervention delivery format as well as patients' willingness to participate in telephone-based supportive care interventions. Content analysis confirmed similar themes across groups. RESULTS: The intervention was viewed favourably as a means of providing information and support in the patient's language. Cultural considerations included assurances of confidentiality, as cancer is not openly discussed within communities. An initial face-to-face contact was highlighted as the most important factor facilitating participation. Participants also recommended the inclusion of patient-initiated calls as part of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides cultural insights relevant to the development of a culturally sensitive telephone-based supportive care intervention for Arabic- and Chinese-speaking cancerpatients. Participants highlighted the need for face-to-face contact and inclusion of patient-initiated calls as important methodological considerations.
Authors: Tim Luckett; David Goldstein; Phyllis N Butow; Val Gebski; Lynley J Aldridge; Joshua McGrane; Weng Ng; Madeleine T King Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-10-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Jane Young; James Harrison; Michael Solomon; Phyllis Butow; Rebecca Dennis; Daine Robson; Sally Auld Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2009-07-22 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Xianglin L Du; Shenying Fang; Sally W Vernon; Hashem El-Serag; Y Tina Shih; Jessica Davila; Monica L Rasmus Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-08-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sabuj Kanti Mistry; Miranda Shaw; Freya Raffan; George Johnson; Katelyn Perren; Saito Shoko; Ben Harris-Roxas; Fiona Haigh Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-01 Impact factor: 4.614