Advertisement

Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 15, Issue 8, pp 963–971 | Cite as

How to summarise and report written qualitative data from patients: a method for use in cancer support care

  • Marie J. PolleyEmail author
  • Helen E. Seers
  • Helen J. Cooke
  • Caroline Hoffman
  • Charlotte Paterson
Original Article

Abstract

Goals of work

The goal of this study is the determination of key themes to aid the analysis of qualitative data collected at three cancer support centres in England, using the Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing (MYCaW) questionnaire.

Patients and methods

People with cancer who use complementary therapies experience and value a wide range of treatment effects, yet tools are urgently required to quantitatively measure these outcomes. MYCaW is an individualised questionnaire used in cancer support centres providing complementary therapies, scoring ‘concerns or problems’ and ‘well-being’ and collecting qualitative data about other major events in a patient’s life and what has been most important to the patient. Content analysis on 782 MYCaW questionnaires from people at these cancer support centres was carried out. The ‘concerns,’ ‘other things going on in their life’ and ‘important aspects of centre’ were thematically categorised and externally validated by a focus group, and the inter-rater reliability was calculated.

Main results

Clinical information from a cancer patient’s perspective was collected that is not measured on standard quality-of-life questionnaires; furthermore, some themes acknowledge the multi-faceted aspects of complementary and alternative medicine provision, rather than information only relating to the therapeutic intervention. Categories for qualitative MYCaW analysis have been established providing a tool for future research and/or service delivery improvement within cancer support centres such as these.

Conclusions

The established themes provide a framework to aid analysis of qualitative aspects of complementary therapy care for people with cancer, improving our understanding of how the patient’s cancer experience can be aided by complementary therapies in specialised cancer centres.

Keywords

Cancer Complementary therapies MYCaW Qualitative analysis Outcome measures 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors kindly thank Glaxo SmithKline for a £20,000 grant received by the corresponding author whilst they were working for Breast Cancer Haven. The rest of the work has been funded through the University of Westminster Research Development Fund and Penny Brohn Cancer Care. The authors would like to thank all the visitors, volunteers and staff at BCH and PBCC who contributed to this study. Lastly, the authors would like to thank the members of the focus group that met on 5th September 2006 at PBCC along with Pat Turton who facilitated the event.

References

  1. 1.
    Armstrong D, Gosling A, Weinman J, Marteau T (1997) The place of inter-rater reliability in qualitative research. Sociology 31:597–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barry C, Barry CA, Britten N, Barber N, Bradley C, Stevenson F (1999) Using reflexivity to optimise teamwork in qualitative research. Qual Health Res 9:26–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bowling A (1995) Measuring disease. A review of disease-specific quality of life measurement scales. Open Univ. Press, Buckingham, p 21Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ernst E, Cassileth BR (1998) The prevalence of complementary and alternative cancer: a systematic review. Cancer 53:2736–2740Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Long AF, Mercer G, Hughes K (2000) Developing a tool to measure holistic practice: a missing dimension in outcomes measurement within complementary therapies. Complement Ther Med 8:26–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meenan R (2001) Developing appropriate measures of the benefits of complementary and alternative medicine. J Health Serv Res Policy 6:38–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Molassiotis A, Fernadez-Ortega P, Pud D, Ozden G, Scott GA, Panteli V et al (2005) Use of complementary and alternative medicine in cancer patients: a European survey. Ann Oncol 16:665–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moris J (1991) Measurement of quality of life: how to choose an appropriate test. Cancer Topics 8:75–76Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paterson C (2004) Seeking the patient’s perspective: a qualitative assessment of EurQol, COOP-WONCA charts and MYMOP. Qual Life Res 13:871–881PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paterson C (2005) How to involve consumers in your research team. Complement Ther Med 13:61–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paterson C, Britten N (2000) In pursuit of patient-centred out-comes: a qualitative evaluation of MYMOP, Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile. J Health Serv Res Policy 5:27–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Paterson C, Thomas K, Manasse A, Cooke H, Peace G (2006) Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing (MYCaW): an individualised questionnaire for evaluating outcome in cancer support care that includes complementary therapies. Complement Ther Med 15:38–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peace G, Manasse A (2002) The Cavendish Centre for integrated cancer care: assessment of patients’ needs and responses. Complement Ther Med 10:33–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Risberg T, Kaasa S, Wist E, Melsom H (1997) Why are cancer patients using non-proven complementary therapies? A cross-sectional multicentre study in Norway. Eur J Cancer 33:575–580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rodeheaver PF, Taylor AG, Lyon DE (2003) Incorporating patients’ perspective in complementary and alternative medicine clinical trial design. J Altern Complement Med 9:959–967PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sparber A, Wootton JC (2001) Surveys of complementary and alternative medicine: part II use of alternative and complementary cancer therapies. J Altern Complement Med 7:281–287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vaghela C, Robinson N, Gore J, Peace B, Lorenc A (2007) A pilot study: Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice (in press)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Verhoef M, Balneaves LG, Boon H, Vroegindewey A (2005) Reasons for and characteristics associated with complementary and alternative medicine use among adult cancer patients: a systematic review. Integr Cancer Ther 4:274–286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Verhoef MJ, Mulkins A, Boon H (2005) Integrative health care: how can we determine whether patients benefit? J Altern Complement Med 11:S57–S65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Waitzkin H (1991) The politics of medical encounters. Yale Univ. Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    White MA, Verhoef MJ (2005) Toward a patient-centred approach: incorporating principles of participatory action research into clinical studies. Integr Cancer Ther 4:21–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zebrack S (2000) Cancer survivors and quality of life: a critical review of the literature. Oncol Nurs Forum 27:1395–1401PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie J. Polley
    • 1
    Email author
  • Helen E. Seers
    • 2
  • Helen J. Cooke
    • 2
  • Caroline Hoffman
    • 3
  • Charlotte Paterson
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Complementary TherapiesUniversity of WestminsterLondonUK
  2. 2.Penny Brohn Cancer CarePill BristolUK
  3. 3.Breast Cancer HavenLondonUK
  4. 4.Institute of Health and Social Care ResearchPeninsula Medical SchoolExeterUK

Personalised recommendations