Emma R Kirby1,2, Katherine E Kenny3, Alexander F Broom3, John L Oliffe4, Sophie Lewis3, David K Wyld5,6, Patsy M Yates7, Rhiannon B Parker3, Zarnie Lwin5,6. 1. Practical Justice Initiative, Centre for Social Research in Health, Level 3 John Goodsell Building, UNSW Sydney, Kensington, 2052, Australia. emma.kirby@unsw.edu.au. 2. Warwick MedicalSchool, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. emma.kirby@unsw.edu.au. 3. Practical Justice Initiative, Centre for Social Research in Health, Level 3 John Goodsell Building, UNSW Sydney, Kensington, 2052, Australia. 4. School of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 5. Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 6. School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 7. School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A cancer diagnosis is an emotive and challenging time for patients. This study aimed to systematically explore patients' accounts of experiencing their cancer diagnosis. The purpose of this article is to offer a typology of patient responses to receiving a cancer diagnosis as a means through which to affirm the range of patients' experiences and to guide clinicians' practice. METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted between 2015 and 2017 with 80 patients living with cancer: 34 females and 46 males, aged between 31 and 85, diagnosed with a range of cancer types, stages and treatment trajectories, from two metropolitan hospitals on the east coast of Australia. Interview data were analysed thematically, using the framework approach. RESULTS: A typology of responses to the cancer diagnosis was derived from the analysis and included (1) the incongruent diagnosis, unexpected because it did not 'fit' with the patient's 'healthy' identity; (2) the incidental diagnosis, arising from seemingly unrelated or minor medical investigations; (3) the validating diagnosis, as explanation and confirmation of previously unexplained symptoms, pain or feelings; (4) the life context diagnosis, where the cancer diagnosis was positioned relative to other challenging life events, or as relatively inconsequential compared with the hardship of others. CONCLUSIONS: A diagnosis of cancer is not always (or only) experienced by patients with shock and despair. Diagnosis is perceived and experienced in diverse ways, shaped by broader social or life contexts, and with important implications for the clinical encounter and communication from an oncology perspective.
PURPOSE: A cancer diagnosis is an emotive and challenging time for patients. This study aimed to systematically explore patients' accounts of experiencing their cancer diagnosis. The purpose of this article is to offer a typology of patient responses to receiving a cancer diagnosis as a means through which to affirm the range of patients' experiences and to guide clinicians' practice. METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted between 2015 and 2017 with 80 patients living with cancer: 34 females and 46 males, aged between 31 and 85, diagnosed with a range of cancer types, stages and treatment trajectories, from two metropolitan hospitals on the east coast of Australia. Interview data were analysed thematically, using the framework approach. RESULTS: A typology of responses to the cancer diagnosis was derived from the analysis and included (1) the incongruent diagnosis, unexpected because it did not 'fit' with the patient's 'healthy' identity; (2) the incidental diagnosis, arising from seemingly unrelated or minor medical investigations; (3) the validating diagnosis, as explanation and confirmation of previously unexplained symptoms, pain or feelings; (4) the life context diagnosis, where the cancer diagnosis was positioned relative to other challenging life events, or as relatively inconsequential compared with the hardship of others. CONCLUSIONS: A diagnosis of cancer is not always (or only) experienced by patients with shock and despair. Diagnosis is perceived and experienced in diverse ways, shaped by broader social or life contexts, and with important implications for the clinical encounter and communication from an oncology perspective.
Entities:
Keywords:
Australia; Cancer diagnosis; Interviews; Qualitative
Authors: Anthony L Back; Robert M Arnold; Walter F Baile; James A Tulsky; Kelly Fryer-Edwards Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2005 May-Jun Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Franziska Kühne; Henriette Fauth; Destina S Ay-Bryson; Leonie N C Visser; Florian Weck Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-11-08 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Omar Eymech; Oliver Brunckhorst; Louis Fox; Anam Jawaid; Mieke Van Hemelrijck; Robert Stewart; Prokar Dasgupta; Kamran Ahmed Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-03-19 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Annika Malmström; Lisa Åkesson; Peter Milos; Munila Mudaisi; Helena Bruhn; Michael Strandeus; Marit Karlsson Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 3.603