Advertisement

Journal of Cancer Education

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 610–616 | Cite as

Information Needs of Cancer Patients and Perception of Impact of the Disease, of Self-Efficacy, and Locus of Control

  • C. Keinki
  • E. Seilacher
  • M. Ebel
  • D. Ruetters
  • I. Kessler
  • J. Stellamanns
  • I. Rudolph
  • J. Huebner
Article

Abstract

The aim of our study was to investigate the relationship between information needs and cancer patients’ perceptions of the impact of the disease, self-efficacy, and locus of control. Using a standardized questionnaire, we obtained data from patients who attended a series of lectures. The questionnaire included questions on their information needs, sources of information, satisfaction with information, and short questionnaires on self-efficacy, perception of the disease, and locus of control of reinforcement. Data was obtained from 185 patients. Our results showed that the sources of information that were most often used were physicians (84 %), print media (68 %), and the Internet (59 %); online fora (7.5 %), non-medical practitioners (9.7 %), and telephone-based counseling (8.6 %) were only used by a minority. Patients with a high perception of their own control over the disease more often used any source of information available to them and were more often interested in acquiring additional information. Higher self-efficacy was significantly associated with the need for information on all topics. Patients with a higher external locus of control significantly more often used sources of information and had significantly more need for additional information. By contrast, there were no associations with an internal locus of control. Neither external nor internal locus of control showed any associations with satisfaction with information. Information needs seem to be higher in patients with a high external locus of control and low self-efficacy. Physicians, other professionals, and institutions that provide information may take these relationships into consideration for tailoring their services to patients.

Keywords

Neoplasm Patient Information needs Self-efficacy Perception of disease Locus of control of reinforcement 

Notes

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary material

13187_2015_860_MOESM1_ESM.doc (55 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 54 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Heimer A, Henkel M (2012) [Need of cancer information in the general population]; Prognos AG. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft AKA GmbH, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Papadakos J, Bussière-Côté S, Abdelmutti N, Catton P, Friedman AJ, Massey C, Urowitz S, Ferguson SE (2012) Informational needs of gynecologic cancer survivors. Gynecol Oncol 124:452–457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    James N, Danielsy H, Rahmany R, McConkey C, Derryz J, Young A (2007) A Study of Information Seeking by Cancer Patients and their Carers. Clin Oncol 19:356e–362eCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Muusses LD, van Weert JC, van Dulmen S, Jansen J (2012) Chemotherapy and information-seeking behaviour: characteristics of patients using mass-media information sources. Psychooncology 21(9):993–1002CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oskay-Özcelik, Lehmacher W, Könsgen D, Christ H, Kaufmann M, Lichtenegger W, Bamberg M, Wallwiener D, Overkamp F et al (2007) Breast cancer patients’ expectations in respect of the physician-patient relationship and treatment management results of a survey of 617 patients. Ann Oncol 18:479–484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Parker SM, Clayton JM, Hancock K, Walder S, Butow PN, Carrick S, Currow D, Ghersi D, Glare P, Hagerty R, Tattersall MH (2007) A systematic review of prognostic/end-of-life communication with adults in the advanced stages of a life-limiting illness: patient/caregiver preferences for the content, style, and timing of information. J Pain Symptom Manag 34:81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gansler T, Kepner J, Willacy E, Soloe C, Rupert D, Jarblum M, Driscoll D, Orr A, Fitzgerald T, Esparza A (2010) Evolving Information Priorities of Hematologic Cancer Survivors, Caregivers, and Other Relatives. J Cancer Educ 25:302–311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huebner J, Ebel M, Muenstedt K, Micke O, Prott FJ, Muecke R and Hoppe A. A lecture program on complementary and alternative medicine for cancer patients - evaluation of the pilot phase; J Cancer Edu; DOI:  10.1007/s13187-014-0706-y
  9. 9.
    Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M (1995) Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: a user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs; Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson; 35–37Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hinz A, Schumacher J, Albani C, Schmid G, Brähler E (2006) Representative norming of the scale for general expectancy of self-efficacy. Diagnostica 52:26–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    http://www.uib.no/ipq/html/b-ipq.html; last accessed 29.03.2015
  14. 14.
    Broadbent E, Petrie KJ, Main J, Weinman J (2006) The Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire. J Psychosomatic Res 60:631–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Steckelberg A, Berger B, Köpke S, Heesen C, Mühlhauser I (2005) Criteria for evidence based patient information. Z ärztl Fortb Qualitätssich 99:343–351Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ärztliches Zentrum für Qualität in der Medizin (ÄZQ) 2006 [Manual patient information – Recommendations for evidence based patient information]. Berlin; äzq Schriftenreihe;http://www.aezq.de/mdb/edocs/pdf/schriftenreihe/schriftenreihe25.pdf; accessed; last accessed 29.03.2015
  19. 19.
    Liebl P, Seilacher E, Koester MJ, Stellamanns J, Zell J, Huebner J. What cancer patients find in the Internet – the visibility of evidence-based patient information. Analysis of information on German websites, J Cancer Res Treat; acceptGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    [User Test of health information of the IQWiG by socially disabled persons]; 2014; IQWiG-Reports – Nr. 208Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nagler RH, Gray SW, Romantan A, Kelly BJ, DeMichele A, Armstrong K, Schwartz JS, Hornik RC (2010) Differences in information seeking among breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer patients: results from a population-based survey. Pat Educ Couns 81(Suppl):S54–S62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paul M, Davey B, Senf B, Stoll C, Muenstedt K, Muecke R, Micke O, Prott FJ, Buentzel J, Huebner J (2013) Patients with advanced cancer and their usage of complementary and alternative medicine. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 130:1515–1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huebner J, Micke O, Mücke R, Buentzel J, Prott FJ, Kleeberg UR, Davey B, Senf B, Münstedt K (2014) User rate of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) of patients visiting a counseling facility for CAM of a German Comprehensive Cancer Center. Anticancer Res 34:943–948PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rudolph I, Seilacher E, Koester MJ, Stellamanns J, Liebl P, Zell J, Ludwig S, Beck V and Huebner J. [Survey on information needs of cancer patients and their relatives in Germany]; DeutschMed Wochenschr; acceptGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Metz JM, Devine P, DeNittis A, Jones H, Hampshire M, Goldwein J, Whittington R (2003) A multi-institutional study of Internet utilization by radiation oncology patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56:1201–1205CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Broom A, Tovey P (2008) The role of the Internet in cancer patients’ engagement with complementary and alternative treatments. Health (London) 12.2:139–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association for Cancer Education 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Keinki
    • 2
  • E. Seilacher
    • 2
  • M. Ebel
    • 1
  • D. Ruetters
    • 2
  • I. Kessler
    • 2
  • J. Stellamanns
    • 2
  • I. Rudolph
    • 2
  • J. Huebner
    • 1
  1. 1.Working Group Integrative Oncology, Dr. Senckenberg Chronomedical InstituteJ.W. Goethe UniversityFrankfurtGermany
  2. 2.German Cancer SocietyBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations