Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Outcome of Supportive Talks in a Hospital Setting: Insights from Cancer Patients and Their Relatives

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

In psychosocial cancer rehabilitation, relatives are often central to patients’ experiences and management of their cancer disease, and they need to be actively involved in rehabilitation. To address this need we developed a psychosocial rehabilitation intervention. As part of the intervention, lung or gynecological cancer patients and a relative as a pair were offered three supportive talks initiated on the date of admission and completed within 2 months.

Objective

The objective of this study was to qualitatively assess the outcome of supportive talks from the pairs’ perspectives and to provide a nuanced understanding of psychosocial support offered to pairs in a hospital setting in Denmark.

Methods

Using a qualitative approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews with pairs receiving supportive talks and pairs receiving usual care. The interviews focused on the pairs’ experiences of psychosocial supportive talks in a hospital setting. A constant comparative analysis was applied to identify themes related to the ways the pairs experienced the talks.

Results

The analysis revealed two main themes: ‘appreciation of the supportive talks’ and ‘the influence of the hospital setting’. The majority of pairs valued the focus on relationship and interpersonal communication, although they appreciated various aspects of the talks. The hospital setting provided valuable resources (trained nurses and medical expertise), but existing clinical routines challenged the implementation of the supportive talks.

Conclusions

The supportive talks were appreciated as psychosocial support in line with the objective, or as information on cancer treatment and routine care. The implementation of a new rehabilitation practice was challenged by the influence of the hospital setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arnaert A, Gabos T, Ballenas V, Rutledge RDH. Contributions of a retreat weekend to the healing and coping of cancer patients’ relatives. Qual Health Res. 2010;20(2):197–208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ponto JA, Barton D. Husbands’ perspective of living with wives’ ovarian cancer. Psychooncology. 2008;17(12):1225–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hilton S, Emslie C, Hunt K, Chapple A, Ziebland S. Disclosing a cancer diagnosis to friends and family: a gendered analysis of young men’s and women’s experiences. Qual Health Res. 2009;19(6):744–54.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Erlingsson CL, Magnusson L, Hanson E. Family caregivers’ health in connection with providing care. Qual Health Res. 2012;22(5):640–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hellbom M, Bergelt C, Bergenmar M, Gijsen B, Loge JH, Rautalahti M, et al. Cancer rehabilitation: a nordic and European perspective. Acta Oncol. 2011;50(2):179–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Holm LV, Hansen DG, Johansen C, Vedsted P, Larsen PV, Kragstrup J, et al. Participation in cancer rehabilitation and unmet needs: a population-based cohort study. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20(11):2913–24.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Madsen K, Poulsen HS. Needs for everyday life support for brain tumour patients’ relatives: systematic literature review. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2011;20(1):33–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Seibaek L, Petersen LK, Blaakaer J, Hounsgaard L. Hoping for the best, preparing for the worst: the lived experiences of women undergoing ovarian cancer surgery. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2012;21(3):360–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Northouse LL, Katapodi MC, Schafenacker AM, Weiss D. The impact of caregiving on the psychological well-being of family caregivers and cancer patients. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2012;28(4):236–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Angen MJ, Simpson JS, Macrae H, Hundleby M. Impact of a residential psychosocial program for cancer patients: a focus group investigation. Adv Mind Body Med. 2003;19(3–4):24–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hodgkinson K, Butow P, Hunt GE, Wyse R, Hobbs KM, Wain G. Life after cancer: couples’ and partners’ psychological adjustment and supportive care needs. Support Care Cancer. 2007;15(4):405–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Eriksson E, Lauri S. Informational and emotional support for cancer patients’ relatives. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2000;9(1):8–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Mosher CE, Jaynes HA, Hanna N, Ostroff JS. Distressed family caregivers of lung cancer patients: an examination of psychosocial and practical challenges. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21(2):431–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hodgkinson K, Butow P, Hobbs KM, Wain G. After cancer: the unmet supportive care needs of survivors and their partners. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2007;25(4):89–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Marselisborgcentret, Rehabiliteringsforum. Rehabilitering i Danmark: hvidbog om rehabiliteringsbegrebet. [Rehabilitation in Denmark: a white book on the concept of rehabilitation]. Aarhus: Marselisborgcentret; 2004.

  16. Given BA, Northouse L. Who cares for family caregivers of patients with cancer? Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2011;15(5):451–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ellis J, Wagland R, Tishelman C, Williams ML, Bailey CD, Haines J, et al. Considerations in developing and delivering a nonpharmacological intervention for symptom management in lung cancer: the views of patients and informal caregivers. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2012;44(6):831–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dalton SO, Bidstrup PE, Johansen C. Rehabilitation of cancer patients: needed, but how? Acta Oncol. 2011;50(2):163–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sundhedsstyrelsen. [The Danish Health and Medicines Authority]. Styrket indsats på kræftområdet: et sundhedsfagligt oplæg. [Increased efforts within the field of cancer—suggestions from the health professionals] (in Danish); 2010, Version: 1.1. http://www.sst.dk/publ/Publ2010/PLAN/Kraeft/StyrketIndsatsPaaKraeftomraadet2010.pdf.

  20. Johnsen AT, Jensen CR, Pedersen C, Grønvold M. Kræftpatientens verden - en undersøgelse af, hvilke problemer danske kræftpatienter oplever. [The world of the cancer patient—a study of problems experienced by Danish cancer patients] (in Danish); 2006. København: Kræftens Bekæmpelse. URL:http://www.cancer.dk/NR/rdonlyres/60C1A9F7-8B1A-400A-8455-547180CB0189/0/behovsundersogkort2006.pdf.

  21. Ross L, Petersen MA, Johnsen AT, Lundstrom LH, Groenvold M. Cancer patients’ evaluation of communication: a report from the population-based study ‘The Cancer Patient’s World’. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21(1):235–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hagedoorn M, Dagan M, Puterman E, Hoff C, Meijerink WJ, DeLongis A, et al. Relationship satisfaction in couples confronted with colorectal cancer: the interplay of past and current spousal support. J Behav Med. 2011;34(4):288–97.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Northouse LL, Mood DW, Schafenacker A, Montie JE, Sandler HM, Forman JD, et al. Randomized clinical trial of a family intervention for prostate cancer patients and their spouses. Cancer. 2007;110(12):2809–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hagedoorn M, Kreicbergs U, Appel C. Coping with cancer: the perspective of patients’ relatives. Acta Oncol. 2011;50(2):205–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stone AM, Mikucki-Enyart S, Middleton A, Caughlin JP, Brown LE. Caring for a parent with lung cancer. Qual Health Res. 2012;22(7):957–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Brundage MD, Feldman-Stewart D, Tishelman C. How do interventions designed to improve provider-patient communication work? Illustrative applications of a framework for communication. Acta Oncol. 2010;49(2):136–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Pitceathly C, Maguire P. The psychological impact of cancer on patients’ partners and other key relatives: a review. Eur J Cancer. 2003;39(11):1517–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Edwards B, Clarke V. The psychological impact of a cancer diagnosis on families: the influence of family functioning and patients’ illness characteristics on depression and anxiety. Psychooncology. 2004;13(8):562–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ockerby C, Livingston P, O’Connell B, Gaskin CJ. The role of informal caregivers during cancer patients’ recovery from chemotherapy. Scand J Caring Sci. 2013;27(1):146–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Anderson JO, Martin PG. Narratives and healing: exploring one family’s stories of cancer survivorship. Health Commun. 2003;15(2):133–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Chambers SK, Dunn J, Occhipinti S, et al. A systematic review of the impact of stigma and nihilism on lung cancer outcomes. BMC Cancer. 2012;12:184.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. de Groot JM, Mah K, Fyles A, et al. The psychosocial impact of cervical cancer among affected women and their partners. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2005;15(5):918–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ledderer L, la Cour K, Mogensen O, et al. Feasibility of a psychosocial rehabilitation intervention to enhance the involvement of relatives in cancer rehabilitation: pilot study for a randomized controlled trial. Patient. 2013;6(3):201–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Badr H, Carmack Taylor CL. Social constraints and spousal communication in lung cancer. Psychooncology. 2006;15:673–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Manne S, Badr H, Kashy DA. A longitudinal analysis of intimacy processes and psychological distress among couples coping with head and neck or lung cancers. J Behav Med. 2012;35:334–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bakas T, Lewis RR, Parsons JE. Caregiving tasks among family caregivers of patients with lung cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2001;28(5):847–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hansen HP, Tjornhoj-Thomsen T, Johansen C. Rehabilitation interventions for cancer survivors: the influence of context. Acta Oncol. 2011;50(2):259–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Baider L. Communicating about illness: a family narrative. Support Care Cancer. 2008;16(6):607–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhang AY, Siminoff LA. Silence and cancer: why do families and patients fail to communicate? Health Commun. 2003;15(4):415–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Stake RE. Qualitative research: studying how things work. New York: Guilford Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Gooberman-Hill R. Qualitative approaches to understanding patient preferences. Patient. 2012;5(4):215–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Patton MQ. How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1987. p. 108–44.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ross L, Petersen MA, Johnsen AT, Lundstrom LH, Lund L, Groenvold M. Using mixed methods to assess how cancer patients’ needs in relation to their relatives are met in the Danish health care system: a report from the population-based study “The Cancer Patient’s World”. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20(12):3211–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Northouse LL. Helping patients and their family caregivers cope with cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2012;39(5):500–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Otis-Green S, Ferrell B, Sun V, Spolum M, Morgan R, Macdonald D. Feasibility of an ovarian cancer quality-of-life psychoeducational intervention. J Cancer Educ. 2008;23(4):214–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Myers SB, Manne SL, Kissane DW, Ozga M, Kashy DA, Rubin S, et al. Social-cognitive processes associated with fear of recurrence among women newly diagnosed with gynecological cancers. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128(1):120–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Teschendorf B, Schwartz C, Ferrans CE, O’Mara A, Novotny P, Sloan J. Caregiver role stress: when families become providers. Cancer Control. 2007;14(2):183–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Northouse LL, Mood DW, Montie JE, Sandler HM, Forman JD, Hussain M, et al. Living with prostate cancer: patients’ and spouses’ psychosocial status and quality of life. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(27):4171–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Carlsson ME, Strang PM. Educational support programme for gynaecological cancer patients and their families. Acta Oncol. 1998;37(3):269–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Illingworth N, Forbat L, Hubbard G, Kearney N. The importance of relationships in the experience of cancer: a re-working of the policy ideal of the whole-systems approach. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2010;14(1):23–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Forbat L, Henderson J. “Stuck in the middle with you”: the ethics and process of qualitative research with two people in an intimate relationship. Qual Health Res. 2003;13(10):1453–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Morgan DL, Ataie J, Carder P, Hoffman K. Introducing dyadic interviews as a method for collecting qualitative data. Qual Health Res. 2013;23(9):1276–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Morris SM. Joint and individual interviewing in the context of cancer. Qual Health Res. 2001;11(4):553–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Gilgun JF, Sands RG. The contribution of qualitative approaches to developmental intervention research. Qual Soc Work. 2012;11(4):349–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Nunkoosing K. The problems with interviews. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(5):698–706.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. McCabe C, Cronin P. Issues for researchers to consider when using health-related quality of life outcomes in cancer research. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2011;20(5):563–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Andrykowski MA. Refining the fundamental question in intervention research in psycho-oncology: perhaps Godot has already arrived? Psychooncology. 2011;20(3):335–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Salander P. It’s futile to believe that RCT studies will steer us to Godot. Psychooncology. 2011;20(3):333–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Clarck VLP, Schumacher K, West C, Edrington J, Dunn LB, et al. Practices for embedding an interpretive qualitative approach within a randomized clinical trial. J Mixed Methods Res. 2013;7(3):219–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Source of funding

The study was funded by the Danish Cancer Society (grant number OKV 08008).

Author contributions

Loni Ledderer has overall responsibility for the content of the manuscript. She led the project and was primarily responsible for the manuscript preparation with contributions from Helle Ploug Hansen and Karen la Cour. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Contributors

Jakob Kragstrup, Ole Mogensen, Erik Jakobsen, and Helle Ploug Hansen conceived the study and developed the design of the overall study. We thank the patients and their relatives who participated in the study. We acknowledge the work of the project nurse, Biddy Madsen, and the important collaboration with nurses from Odense University Hospital: Gitte Bekker, Susanne Pedersen, and Kamila A. Holt, and also the staff at the Rehabilitation Center Dallund. The Danish Milieu for Humanistic Cancer Research (http://www.mifohuk.dk) provided support for discussions and writing seminars.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest, and the authors alone are responsible for the content of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Public Health, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 2, 8000, Aarhus, Denmark

    Loni Ledderer

  2. Health, Man and Society, Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

    Karen la Cour & Helle Ploug Hansen

Authors
  1. Loni Ledderer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karen la Cour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Helle Ploug Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Loni Ledderer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ledderer, L., la Cour, K. & Hansen, H.P. Outcome of Supportive Talks in a Hospital Setting: Insights from Cancer Patients and Their Relatives. Patient 7, 219–229 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0047-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0047-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation