Joanne Shaw1, Brandi Baylock2, Amanda O'Reilly3, Julie Winstanley3,4, Lina Pugliano3,4, Kerrie Andrews3, Frances Boyle3,4. 1. Psycho-oncology Co-operative Research Group, School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. joanne.shaw@sydney.edu.au. 2. Psycho-oncology Co-operative Research Group, School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 3. The Patricia Ritchie Centre for Cancer Care & Research, The Mater Hospital, North Sydney, NSW, Australia. 4. Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced hair loss is a common and distressing side effect. Scalp cooling is increasingly being used to reduce this hair loss. The purpose of this study was to explore patients' perceptions and experience of scalp cooling. METHODS: Seventeen Australian women with a diagnosis of breast cancer participated in a focus group (n = 4) or a semi-structured interview (n = 3). Both scalp-cooled and non-scalp-cooled participant views were sought. Participant perceptions and experiences of scalp cooling were discussed as part of patients' overall chemotherapy experience and a thematic analysis conducted. RESULTS: Five themes emerged from the data: (1) scalp cooling in the context of treatment decision-making discussions, (2) hair loss expectations vs. experiences, (3) treatment-related expectations vs. experiences, (4) the promise of faster regrowth and (5) satisfaction with scalp cooling and future scalp cooling decision-making considerations. Information during treatment decision-making was the primary factor that influenced whether patient expectations were met. Faster regrowth was a motivator to continue treatment. Efficacy and tolerability of scalp cooling influenced future hypothetical treatment decision-making for both scalp-cooled and non-scalp-cooled participants. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first in-depth exploration of patient attitudes to scalp cooling. The results highlight a need for accurate information regarding efficacy and tolerability as well as hair care information to assist patients with their treatment decision-making.
PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced hair loss is a common and distressing side effect. Scalp cooling is increasingly being used to reduce this hair loss. The purpose of this study was to explore patients' perceptions and experience of scalp cooling. METHODS: Seventeen Australian women with a diagnosis of breast cancer participated in a focus group (n = 4) or a semi-structured interview (n = 3). Both scalp-cooled and non-scalp-cooled participant views were sought. Participant perceptions and experiences of scalp cooling were discussed as part of patients' overall chemotherapy experience and a thematic analysis conducted. RESULTS: Five themes emerged from the data: (1) scalp cooling in the context of treatment decision-making discussions, (2) hair loss expectations vs. experiences, (3) treatment-related expectations vs. experiences, (4) the promise of faster regrowth and (5) satisfaction with scalp cooling and future scalp cooling decision-making considerations. Information during treatment decision-making was the primary factor that influenced whether patient expectations were met. Faster regrowth was a motivator to continue treatment. Efficacy and tolerability of scalp cooling influenced future hypothetical treatment decision-making for both scalp-cooled and non-scalp-cooled participants. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first in-depth exploration of patient attitudes to scalp cooling. The results highlight a need for accurate information regarding efficacy and tolerability as well as hair care information to assist patients with their treatment decision-making.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Focus groups; Interviews; Qualitative; Scalp cooling
Authors: Annette M O'Connor; Carol L Bennett; Dawn Stacey; Michael Barry; Nananda F Col; Karen B Eden; Vikki A Entwistle; Valerie Fiset; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Sara Khangura; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; David Rovner Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-07-08
Authors: Daniel C Betticher; Geoffrey Delmore; Urs Breitenstein; Sandro Anchisi; Beatrice Zimmerli-Schwab; Andreas Müller; Roger von Moos; Anne Marguerite Hügli-Dayer; Hubert Schefer; Sereina Bodenmann; Vera Bühler; Ralph R Trueb Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-05-02 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: C Paterson; M Kozlovskaia; M Turner; K Strickland; C Roberts; R Ogilvie; G Pranavan; P Craft Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2020-07-18 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Taylor Novice; Madison Novice; David Portney; Joshua Goyert; N Lynn Henry; Jacqueline S Jeruss; Monika L Burness Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-07-23 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Joanne M Shaw; Jane O'Brien; Susan Chua; Richard De Boer; Rachel Dear; Nicholas Murray; Fran Boyle Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-08-29 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: V V Shah; T C Wikramanayake; G M DelCanto; C van den Hurk; S Wu; M E Lacouture; J J Jimenez Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Date: 2017-11-24 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Anne Versluis; Kirsten van Alphen; Wouter Dercksen; Henk de Haas; Corina van den Hurk; Ad A Kaptein Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kirsten van Alphen; Anne Versluis; Wouter Dercksen; Henk de Haas; Rieneke Lugtenberg; Jitske Tiemensma; Judith Kroep; Elizabeth Broadbent; Ad A Kaptein; Corina van den Hurk Journal: Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs Date: 2020-03-30