Violet D'Souza1, Maiziel Serrao2, Erin Watson2, Elizabeth Blouin3, Anthony Zeitouni3, Paul J Allison2. 1. Faculty of Dentistry, McGill University, 2001 Avenue McGill College, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 2B2, Canada. violet.dsouza@mail.mcgill.ca. 2. Faculty of Dentistry, McGill University, 2001 Avenue McGill College, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 2B2, Canada. 3. Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, McGill University Hospital Center, 687 Pine Ave, West Suite E4-41, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1A1, Canada.
Abstract
AIM: We aimed to understand how information was delivered to head and neck (H&N) cancer patients and describe the perceptions of the H&N patients concerning information delivery. METHODOLOGY: This qualitative investigation was a part of our larger quantitative study that was conducted with H&N cancer patients at two academic hospitals in Montreal. After obtaining the ethical approval, a purposeful sample of participants was recruited from the main study until the content of the information gathered reached saturation. Data were collected by observing the information delivery and interviewing the study participants and Nurse Pivots. All observations and interviews were audiotaped. Data were transcribed verbatim; transcripts were developed, audited, and subjected to a thematic analysis. RESULTS: Eleven H&N patients participated in the study. We found that the doctors were the main source of information at both hospitals; one hospital delivered information systematically to every patient using a multimedia-based information disseminating tool while the second hospital delivered information verbally in an ad hoc manner. Those who received information using the multimedia tool understood what was said to them and were better prepared for the next step, while those who received information verbally did not retain much, were confused, and expressed dissatisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Although the doctors were the main source of information, patients experience difficulties in understanding what was said to them. Comprehensive information together with audiovisuals, when provided to H&N cancer patients based on their needs, seems to improve their understanding of their cancer and prepare them for their treatment.
AIM: We aimed to understand how information was delivered to head and neck (H&N) cancerpatients and describe the perceptions of the H&N patients concerning information delivery. METHODOLOGY: This qualitative investigation was a part of our larger quantitative study that was conducted with H&N cancerpatients at two academic hospitals in Montreal. After obtaining the ethical approval, a purposeful sample of participants was recruited from the main study until the content of the information gathered reached saturation. Data were collected by observing the information delivery and interviewing the study participants and Nurse Pivots. All observations and interviews were audiotaped. Data were transcribed verbatim; transcripts were developed, audited, and subjected to a thematic analysis. RESULTS: Eleven H&N patients participated in the study. We found that the doctors were the main source of information at both hospitals; one hospital delivered information systematically to every patient using a multimedia-based information disseminating tool while the second hospital delivered information verbally in an ad hoc manner. Those who received information using the multimedia tool understood what was said to them and were better prepared for the next step, while those who received information verbally did not retain much, were confused, and expressed dissatisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Although the doctors were the main source of information, patients experience difficulties in understanding what was said to them. Comprehensive information together with audiovisuals, when provided to H&N cancerpatients based on their needs, seems to improve their understanding of their cancer and prepare them for their treatment.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer information; Head and neck cancer patients; Patients’ perceptions
Authors: Gary Rodin; Jean A Mackay; Camilla Zimmermann; Carole Mayer; Doris Howell; Mark Katz; Jonathan Sussman; Melissa Brouwers Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2009-03-04 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan; Femke Jansen; Birgit I Lissenberg-Witte; Simone E J Eerenstein; C René Leemans; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Isabella Capodanno; Mirta Rocchi; Rossella Prandi; Cristina Pedroni; Enrica Tamagnini; Pierluigi Alfieri; Francesco Merli; Luca Ghirotto Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-06-05 Impact factor: 3.390