Elisabet Mattsson1, Kim Einhorn2, Lisa Ljungman3, Inger Sundström-Poromaa2, Karin Stålberg2, Anna Wikman2. 1. Department of Health Care Sciences, Ersta Sköndal Bräcke University College, Stockholm, Sweden. Electronic address: elisabet.mattsson@esh.se. 2. Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 3. Division of Nursing, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prevalence and predictors of cancer-related distress in younger women treated for gynaecological cancer, and to explore women's needs and experiences of psychosocial support following end-of-treatment. METHODS: Data were collected from 337 gynaecological cancer survivors, 19-39years at diagnosis, using a study-specific questionnaire and the Swedish Quality Register of Gynaecologic Cancer. Predictors of distress were investigated with multivariable logistic regression analysis. Open-ended questions were analysed with content analysis. RESULTS: The prevalence of cancer-related distress was 85% (n=286) including fear of cancer-recurrence (n=175, 61%), anxiety (n=152, 53%), depression (n=145, 51%), fear of death (n=91, 32%), concerns regarding sexuality (n=87, 34%) and fertility (n=78, 27%), and changed body image (n=78, 27%). Multi-modal treatment (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.13-4.49) and a history of psychological distress (OR 3.44, 95% CI 1.41-8.39) predicted cancer-related distress. The majority of women experiencing distress also reported a need for support after end-of-treatment (n=205, 71%). One-third of those receiving support reported the received support as inadequate (n=55, 34%). Eight categories described reasons for not seeking support, e.g., lacked strength to seek professional support and too busy managing every-day life and, wanted help but did not know who to turn to. Four categories described reasons for not receiving sought support e.g., found it difficult to openly express feelings, psychosocial care was under-dimensioned, insufficient and unprofessional. CONCLUSION: Results identify the importance of support and longer-term follow-up for young survivors of gynaecological cancer. The support needs to be organised to meet this group's specific needs.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prevalence and predictors of cancer-related distress in younger women treated for gynaecological cancer, and to explore women's needs and experiences of psychosocial support following end-of-treatment. METHODS: Data were collected from 337 gynaecological cancer survivors, 19-39years at diagnosis, using a study-specific questionnaire and the Swedish Quality Register of Gynaecologic Cancer. Predictors of distress were investigated with multivariable logistic regression analysis. Open-ended questions were analysed with content analysis. RESULTS: The prevalence of cancer-related distress was 85% (n=286) including fear of cancer-recurrence (n=175, 61%), anxiety (n=152, 53%), depression (n=145, 51%), fear of death (n=91, 32%), concerns regarding sexuality (n=87, 34%) and fertility (n=78, 27%), and changed body image (n=78, 27%). Multi-modal treatment (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.13-4.49) and a history of psychological distress (OR 3.44, 95% CI 1.41-8.39) predicted cancer-related distress. The majority of women experiencing distress also reported a need for support after end-of-treatment (n=205, 71%). One-third of those receiving support reported the received support as inadequate (n=55, 34%). Eight categories described reasons for not seeking support, e.g., lacked strength to seek professional support and too busy managing every-day life and, wanted help but did not know who to turn to. Four categories described reasons for not receiving sought support e.g., found it difficult to openly express feelings, psychosocial care was under-dimensioned, insufficient and unprofessional. CONCLUSION: Results identify the importance of support and longer-term follow-up for young survivors of gynaecological cancer. The support needs to be organised to meet this group's specific needs.
Authors: Elisabet Mattsson; Lisa Ljungman; Kim Einhorn; Inger Sundström Poromaa; Karin Stålberg; Anna Wikman Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2020-12-22 Impact factor: 2.809