PURPOSE: This study aims to identify key issues associated with the provision of psychosocial care from the perspective of rural Australian cancer patients and determine culturally appropriate methods that may reduce barriers to service use. METHOD: Seventeen purposively sampled adult South Australians who lived outside metropolitan Adelaide, had a diagnosis of cancer and various demographic and medical histories participated in semi-structured, face-to-face interviews. Participants also completed a demographic questionnaire. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Five key themes were identified: (1) psychosocial support is highly valued by those who have accessed it, (2) having access to both lay and professional psychosocial support is vitally important, (3) accessing psychosocial services is made difficult by several barriers (lack of information about services, initial beliefs they are unnecessary, feeling overwhelmed and concerns about stigma and dual relationships), (4) medical staff located in metropolitan treatment centres are not sufficiently aware of the unique needs of rural patients and (5) patients require better access to psychosocial services post-treatment. Methods through which rural patients believe access to psychosocial services could be improved include: (1) providing more rural-specific information on psychosocial care, (2) improving communication between health care providers and referral to psychosocial services and (3) making psychosocial services a standard part of care. CONCLUSIONS: Rural cancer patients want their unique needs to be recognised and to be treated differently to their urban counterparts. There is a need for more targeted and rurally relevant information for rural cancer patients, both to inform them of, and change their attitudes towards, psychosocial services. Other practical recommendations are also discussed.
PURPOSE: This study aims to identify key issues associated with the provision of psychosocial care from the perspective of rural Australian cancerpatients and determine culturally appropriate methods that may reduce barriers to service use. METHOD: Seventeen purposively sampled adult South Australians who lived outside metropolitan Adelaide, had a diagnosis of cancer and various demographic and medical histories participated in semi-structured, face-to-face interviews. Participants also completed a demographic questionnaire. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Five key themes were identified: (1) psychosocial support is highly valued by those who have accessed it, (2) having access to both lay and professional psychosocial support is vitally important, (3) accessing psychosocial services is made difficult by several barriers (lack of information about services, initial beliefs they are unnecessary, feeling overwhelmed and concerns about stigma and dual relationships), (4) medical staff located in metropolitan treatment centres are not sufficiently aware of the unique needs of rural patients and (5) patients require better access to psychosocial services post-treatment. Methods through which rural patients believe access to psychosocial services could be improved include: (1) providing more rural-specific information on psychosocial care, (2) improving communication between health care providers and referral to psychosocial services and (3) making psychosocial services a standard part of care. CONCLUSIONS:Rural cancerpatients want their unique needs to be recognised and to be treated differently to their urban counterparts. There is a need for more targeted and rurally relevant information for rural cancerpatients, both to inform them of, and change their attitudes towards, psychosocial services. Other practical recommendations are also discussed.
Authors: Phyllis N Butow; Fiona Phillips; Janine Schweder; Kate White; Craig Underhill; David Goldstein Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jitender Sareen; Amit Jagdeo; Brian J Cox; Ian Clara; Margreet ten Have; Shay-Lee Belik; Ron de Graaf; Murray B Stein Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: C Koopman; K Angell; J M Turner-Cobb; M A Kreshka; P Donnelly; R McCoy; A Turkseven; K Graddy; J Giese-Davis; D Spiegel Journal: Breast J Date: 2001 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Katharine E Jong; David P Smith; Xue Q Yu; Dianne L O'Connell; David Goldstein; Bruce K Armstrong Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2004-06-21 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: L E Carlson; M Angen; J Cullum; E Goodey; J Koopmans; L Lamont; J H MacRae; M Martin; G Pelletier; J Robinson; J S A Simpson; M Speca; L Tillotson; B D Bultz Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2004-06-14 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Kate M Gunn; Narelle M Berry; Xingqiong Meng; Carlene J Wilson; James Dollman; Richard J Woodman; Robyn A Clark; Bogda Koczwara Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Bonnie Wiggins; Nadia Corsini; Imogen Ramsey; Suzanne Edwards; Deb Ball; Lesley Cocks; Jo Lill; Greg Sharplin; Carlene Wilson Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-07-31 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kaaren J Watts; Louise H Good; Sandy McKiernan; Lisa Miller; Moira O'Connor; Robert Kane; Deborah J Kruger; Bree R Adams; Toni Musiello Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-10-17 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Kate M Gunn; Gemma Skaczkowski; James Dollman; Andrew D Vincent; Camille E Short; Susan Brumby; Alison Barrett; Nathan Harrison; Deborah Turnbull Journal: JMIR Hum Factors Date: 2022-01-11
Authors: Shannen R van der Kruk; Phyllis Butow; Ilse Mesters; Terry Boyle; Ian Olver; Kate White; Sabe Sabesan; Rob Zielinski; Bryan A Chan; Kristiaan Spronk; Peter Grimison; Craig Underhill; Laura Kirsten; Kate M Gunn Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-08-14 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kate M Gunn; Ian Olver; Xiomara Skrabal Ross; Nathan Harrison; Patricia M Livingston; Carlene Wilson Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 6.639