Christine M Veenstra1,2, Jennifer Acosta3, Rebecca Sharar4, Sarah T Hawley2,5, Arden M Morris6. 1. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 2. Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 3. Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 4. University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 6. Department of Surgery, S-Spire Center, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Following treatment of Stage III colorectal cancer, guidelines recommend 3-5 years of surveillance for recurrence. However, over half of the 1.2 million U.S. survivors of colorectal cancer fail to receive guideline-concordant surveillance. In light of growing recognition that members of couples are interdependent and influence each other's health behaviors, we sought to describe, in their own words, the perspectives of spouses/partners on their engagement in patients' surveillance. METHODS: We conducted in-person, semi-structured interviews with 10 survivors of stage III colorectal cancer and their partners, together and separately. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, iteratively coded, and analyzed to identify emergent themes pertaining to partner engagement. Findings were validated through triangulation between study team members and triangulation between dyadic and individual interviews, and through an extensive search of transcripts for disconfirming evidence. RESULTS: We identified three overarching domains of partner engagement in surveillance. First, psychosocial engagement included promoting patient participation in surveillance, showing care and concern, and attending to partner self-care. Second, information-seeking and dyadic communication focused on gathering information, staying informed about test results, and communicating about surveillance. Third, instrumental engagement referred to any explicit, objective activities such as scheduling appointments, attending appointments, and managing responsibilities at home. Participants shared strategies, examples, and in some cases unmet needs. CONCLUSIONS: This study generated new, clinically meaningful knowledge about the ways in which partners engage in patients' surveillance. Opportunities to leverage partners as informal resources in surveillance include development of dyadic interventions to help partners engage most effectively.
OBJECTIVES: Following treatment of Stage III colorectal cancer, guidelines recommend 3-5 years of surveillance for recurrence. However, over half of the 1.2 million U.S. survivors of colorectal cancer fail to receive guideline-concordant surveillance. In light of growing recognition that members of couples are interdependent and influence each other's health behaviors, we sought to describe, in their own words, the perspectives of spouses/partners on their engagement in patients' surveillance. METHODS: We conducted in-person, semi-structured interviews with 10 survivors of stage III colorectal cancer and their partners, together and separately. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, iteratively coded, and analyzed to identify emergent themes pertaining to partner engagement. Findings were validated through triangulation between study team members and triangulation between dyadic and individual interviews, and through an extensive search of transcripts for disconfirming evidence. RESULTS: We identified three overarching domains of partner engagement in surveillance. First, psychosocial engagement included promoting patient participation in surveillance, showing care and concern, and attending to partner self-care. Second, information-seeking and dyadic communication focused on gathering information, staying informed about test results, and communicating about surveillance. Third, instrumental engagement referred to any explicit, objective activities such as scheduling appointments, attending appointments, and managing responsibilities at home. Participants shared strategies, examples, and in some cases unmet needs. CONCLUSIONS: This study generated new, clinically meaningful knowledge about the ways in which partners engage in patients' surveillance. Opportunities to leverage partners as informal resources in surveillance include development of dyadic interventions to help partners engage most effectively.
Authors: Megan A Lewis; Colleen M McBride; Kathryn I Pollak; Elaine Puleo; Rita M Butterfield; Karen M Emmons Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2005-09-16 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Ramzi G Salloum; Mark C Hornbrook; Paul A Fishman; Debra P Ritzwoller; Maureen C O'Keeffe Rossetti; Jennifer Elston Lafata Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-03-20 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: K Beaver; C Wilson; D Procter; J Sheridan; G Towers; J Heath; S Susnerwala; K Luker Journal: Eur J Oncol Nurs Date: 2010-07-02 Impact factor: 2.398
Authors: Laurel L Northouse; Maria C Katapodi; Lixin Song; Lingling Zhang; Darlene W Mood Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2010-08-13 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Robert J Volk; Scott B Cantor; Alvah R Cass; Stephen J Spann; Susan C Weller; Murray D Krahn Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Pamela B Mangu; Patrick J Flynn; Larissa Korde; Charles L Loprinzi; Bruce D Minsky; Nicholas J Petrelli; Kim Ryan; Deborah H Schrag; Sandra L Wong; Al B Benson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christine M Veenstra; Lauren P Wallner; Paul H Abrahamse; Nancy K Janz; Steven J Katz; Sarah T Hawley Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-01-11 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Christine M Veenstra; Katrina R Ellis; Paul Abrahamse; Kevin C Ward; Arden M Morris; Sarah T Hawley Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-10-13 Impact factor: 4.638