Amanda Drury1, Sheila Payne2, Anne-Marie Brady3. 1. School of Nursing & Midwifery, Faculty of Health Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland. Electronic address: amdrury@tcd.ie. 2. International Observatory on End of Life Care, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK. 3. School of Nursing & Midwifery, Faculty of Health Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland; Centre for Practice and Healthcare Innovation, School of Nursing & Midwifery, Faculty of Health Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Previous conceptualizations of cancer survivorship have focused on heterogeneous cancer survivors, with little consideration of the validity of conclusions for homogeneous tumour groups. This paper aims to examine the concept of cancer survivorship in the context of colorectal cancer (CRC). METHOD: Rodgers' (1989) Evolutionary Method of Concept Analysis guided this study. A systematic search of PUBMED, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library was conducted in November 2016 to identify studies of CRC survivorship. The Braun and Clarke (2006) framework guided the analysis and interpretation of data extracted from eighty-five publications. RESULTS: Similar to general populations of cancer survivors, CRC survivors experience survivorship as an individual, life-changing process, punctuated by uncertainty and a duality of positive and negative outcomes affecting quality of life. However, CRC survivors experience specific concerns arising from the management of their disease. The concept of cancer survivorship has evolved over the past decade as the importance of navigating the healthcare system and its resources, and the constellation of met and unmet needs of cancer survivors are realised. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight core similarities between survivorship in the context of CRC and other tumour groups, but underlines issues specific to CRC survivorship. Communication and support are key issues in survivorship care which may detrimentally affect CRC survivors' well-being if they are inadequately addressed. Healthcare professionals (HCP's) therefore have a duty to ensure cancer survivors' health, information and supportive care needs are met in the aftermath of treatment.
PURPOSE: Previous conceptualizations of cancer survivorship have focused on heterogeneous cancer survivors, with little consideration of the validity of conclusions for homogeneous tumour groups. This paper aims to examine the concept of cancer survivorship in the context of colorectal cancer (CRC). METHOD: Rodgers' (1989) Evolutionary Method of Concept Analysis guided this study. A systematic search of PUBMED, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library was conducted in November 2016 to identify studies of CRC survivorship. The Braun and Clarke (2006) framework guided the analysis and interpretation of data extracted from eighty-five publications. RESULTS: Similar to general populations of cancer survivors, CRC survivors experience survivorship as an individual, life-changing process, punctuated by uncertainty and a duality of positive and negative outcomes affecting quality of life. However, CRC survivors experience specific concerns arising from the management of their disease. The concept of cancer survivorship has evolved over the past decade as the importance of navigating the healthcare system and its resources, and the constellation of met and unmet needs of cancer survivors are realised. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight core similarities between survivorship in the context of CRC and other tumour groups, but underlines issues specific to CRC survivorship. Communication and support are key issues in survivorship care which may detrimentally affect CRC survivors' well-being if they are inadequately addressed. Healthcare professionals (HCP's) therefore have a duty to ensure cancer survivors' health, information and supportive care needs are met in the aftermath of treatment.
Authors: Marianne Krogsgaard; Helle Ø Kristensen; Edgar J B Furnée; Sanne J Verkuijl; Nuno José Rama; Hugo Domingos; João Maciel; Alejandro Solis-Peña; Eloy Espín-Basany; Marta Hidalgo-Pujol; Sebastiano Biondo; Annika Sjövall; Katrine J Emmertsen; Anne Thyø; Peter Christensen Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-08-05 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Josephina G Kuiper; Myrthe P P van Herk-Sukel; Valery E P P Lemmens; Mathijs J Kuiper; Ernst J Kuipers; Ron M C Herings Journal: ESC Heart Fail Date: 2022-04-22
Authors: Janna L Koole; Martijn J L Bours; Anne J M R Geijsen; Biljana Gigic; Arve Ulvik; Dieuwertje E Kok; Stefanie Brezina; Jennifer Ose; Andreas Baierl; Jürgen Böhm; Hermann Brenner; Stéphanie O Breukink; Jenny Chang-Claude; Fränzel J B van Duijnhoven; Peter van Duijvendijk; Tanja Gumpenberger; Nina Habermann; Henk K van Halteren; Michael Hoffmeister; Andreana N Holowatyj; Maryska L G Janssen-Heijnen; Eric T P Keulen; Rama Kiblawi; Flip M Kruyt; Christopher I Li; Tengda Lin; Øivind Midttun; Anita R Peoples; Eline H van Roekel; Martin A Schneider; Petra Schrotz-King; Alexis B Ulrich; Kathy Vickers; Evertine Wesselink; Johannes H W de Wilt; Andrea Gsur; Per M Ueland; Cornelia M Ulrich; Ellen Kampman; Matty P Weijenberg Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Eleonora Feletto; Jie-Bin Lew; Joachim Worthington; Emily He; Michael Caruana; Katherine Butler; Harriet Hui; Natalie Taylor; Emily Banks; Karen Barclay; Kate Broun; Alison Butt; Rob Carter; Jeff Cuff; Anita Dessaix; Hooi Ee; Jon Emery; Ian M Frayling; Paul Grogan; Carol Holden; Christopher Horn; Mark A Jenkins; James G Kench; Maarit A Laaksonen; Barbara Leggett; Gillian Mitchell; Susan Morris; Bonny Parkinson; D James St John; Linda Taoube; Katherine Tucker; Melanie A Wakefield; Robyn L Ward; Aung Ko Win; Daniel L Worthley; Bruce K Armstrong; Finlay A Macrae; Karen Canfell Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-06-21 Impact factor: 2.692