Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Completing a Questionnaire at Home Prior to Needs Assessment in General Practice: A Qualitative Study of Cancer Patients’ Experience

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

Abstract

Background

Systematic assessments of cancer patients’ rehabilitation needs are recommended, and questionnaires are considered to be useful tools when making such assessments.

Objective

The aim of this study was to explore patients’ experience of completing a questionnaire about their problems and distress at home prior to a needs assessment in general practice.

Methods

Sixteen patients were recruited by their general practitioners (GPs). Semi-structured interviews were conducted in the home of the participants and at the general practice, with one interview taking place over the phone. Data were analyzed using systematic text condensation.

Results

Twelve women and four men aged between 49 and 83 years of age, and diagnosed with various cancers between 1 month and 4 years ago, participated in the study. The results showed how the completion of a questionnaire at home provided patients with an opportunity to reflect on different problems, and the importance of these problems to the patient’s everyday life, as well as an opportunity to articulate which problems they wanted to discuss with their GPs.

Conclusions

The results demonstrate that completing a questionnaire seems to stimulate patients’ ability to reflect on their situation, clarify the importance of different problems to their everyday lives, and articulate these considerations to their GPs. Furthermore, we have shown that a questionnaire has the ability to interact with the patient and instigate a process of awareness. It is important to acknowledge this process of interaction between patient and questionnaire as an important part of understanding how and why questionnaires may support the patient when completing a questionnaire prior to a clinical encounter.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mikkelsen T, Sondergaard J, Sokolowski I, Jensen A, Olesen F. Cancer survivors’ rehabilitation needs in a primary health care context. Fam Pract. 2009;26(3):221–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ploos van Amstel FK, van den Berg SW, van Laarhoven HW, Gielissen MF, Prins JB, Ottevanger PB. Distress screening remains important during follow-up after primary breast cancer treatment. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21(8):2107–2115.

  3. Veloso AG, Sperling C, Holm LV, Nicolaisen A, Rottmann N, Thayssen S, et al. Unmet needs in cancer rehabilitation during the early cancer trajectory: a nationwide patient survey. Acta Oncol. 2013;52(2):372–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kræftramtes behov og oplevelser gennem behandling og i efterforløbet. Kræftens Bekæmpelses Barometerundersøgelse, 2013. [Cancer patients’ needs and experiences during and after treatment, The Danish Cancer Society, 2013]. Copenhagen: The Danish Cancer Society; 2013.

  5. Salz T, Baxi SS, Raghunathan N, Onstad EE, Freedman AN, Moskowitz CS, et al. Are we ready to predict late effects? A systematic review of clinically useful prediction models. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(6):758–66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Harrington CB, Hansen JA, Moskowitz M, Todd BL, Feuerstein M. It’s not over when it’s over: long-term symptoms in cancer survivors: a systematic review. Int J Psychiatry Med. 2010;40(2):163–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jansen L, Koch L, Brenner H, Arndt V. Quality of life among long-term (≥5 years) colorectal cancer survivors: systematic review. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(16):2879–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tuinman MA, Gazendam-Donofrio SM, Hoekstra-Weebers JE. Screening and referral for psychosocial distress in oncologic practice: use of the Distress Thermometer. Cancer. 2008;113(4):870–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jacobsen PB, Donovan KA, Trask PC, Fleishman SB, Zabora J, Baker F, et al. Screening for psychologic distress in ambulatory cancer patients. Cancer. 2005;103(7):1494–502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mertz BG, Bistrup PE, Johansen C, Dalton SO, Deltour I, Kehlet H, et al. Psychological distress among women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2012;16(4):439–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ryan H, Schofield P, Cockburn J, Butow P, Tattersall M, Turner J, et al. How to recognize and manage psychological distress in cancer patients. Eur J Cancer Care. 2005;14(1):7–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. McCallum M, Lefebvre M, Jolicoeur L, Maheu C, Lebel S. Sexual health and gynecological cancer: conceptualizing patient needs and overcoming barriers to seeking and accessing services. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;33(3):135–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bushnell J, McLeod D, Dowell A, Salmond C, Ramage S, Collings S, et al. Do patients want to disclose psychological problems to GPs? Fam Pract. 2005;22(6):631–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Harrison JD, Young JM, Price MA, Butow PN, Solomon MJ. What are the unmet supportive care needs of people with cancer? A systematic review. Support Care Cancer. 2009;17(8):1117–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hansen DG, Larsen PV, Holm LV, Rottmann N, Bergholdt SH, Sondergaard J. Association between unmet needs and quality of life of cancer patients: a population-based study. Acta Oncol. 2013;52(2):391–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bredart A, Kop JL, Fiszer C, Sigal-Zafrani B, Dolbeault S. Breast cancer survivors’ perceived medical communication competence and satisfaction with care at the end of treatment. Psychooncology (Epub 15 May 2015). doi:10.1002/pon.3836.

  17. Russell L, Gough K, Drosdowsky A, Schofield P, Aranda S, Butow PN, Westwood JA, Krishnasamy M, Young JM, Phipps-Nelson J, King D, Jefford MJ. Psychological distress, quality of life, symptoms and unmet needs of colorectal cancer survivors near the end of treatment. J Cancer Surviv. 2015;9(3):462–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wen KY, Gustafson DH. Needs assessment for cancer patients and their families. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004;2:11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Fann JR, Thomas-Rich AM, Katon WJ, Cowley D, Pepping M, McGregor BA, et al. Major depression after breast cancer: a review of epidemiology and treatment. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2008;30(2):112–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Forløbsprogram for rehabilitering og palliation i forbindelse med kræft – del af samlet forløbsprogram for kræft 2012. [Care programmes for rehabilitation and palliation in cancer – part of a total care programme for cancer 2012]. Copenhagen: Danish Health and Medicines Authority; 2012.

  21. Howell D, Mayo S, Currie S, Jones G, Boyle M, Hack T, et al. Psychosocial health care needs assessment of adult cancer patients: a consensus-based guideline. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20(12):3343–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on cancer services: improving supportive and palliative care for adults with cancer. The manual. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Network National Comprehensive Cancer. Distress management. Clinical practice guidelines. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2003;1(3):344–74.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mitchell AJ. Screening for cancer-related distress: when is implementation successful and when is it unsuccessful? Acta Oncol. 2013;52(2):216–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Carlson LE, Waller A, Mitchell AJ. Screening for distress and unmet needs in patients with cancer: review and recommendations. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(11):1160–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Richardson A, Medina J, Brown V, Sitzia J. Patients’ needs assessment in cancer care: a review of assessment tools. Support Care Cancer. 2007;15(10):1125–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Pugh W, Porter AM. How sharp can a screening tool be? A qualitative study of patients’ experience of completing a bowel cancer screening questionnaire. Health Expect. 2011;14(2):170–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Watanabe S, Nekolaichuk C, Beaumont C, Mawani A. The Edmonton symptom assessment system: what do patients think? Support Care Cancer. 2009;17(6):675–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Jones R, Regan M, Ristevski E, Breen S. Patients’ perception of communication with clinicians during screening and discussion of cancer supportive care needs. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;85(3):209–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Boyes A, Newell S, Girgis A, McElduff P, Sanson-Fisher R. Does routine assessment and real-time feedback improve cancer patients’ psychosocial well-being? Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2006;15(2):163–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Detmar SB, Muller MJ, Schornagel JH, Wever LD, Aaronson NK. Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288(23):3027–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Velikova G, Booth L, Smith AB, Brown PM, Lynch P, Brown JM, et al. Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(4):714–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Pedersen KM, Andersen JS, Sondergaard J. General practice and primary health care in Denmark. J Am Board Fam Med. 2012;25(Suppl 1):S34–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kendall M, Boyd K, Campbell C, Cormie P, Fife S, Thomas K, et al. How do people with cancer wish to be cared for in primary care? Serial discussion groups of patients and carers. Fam Pract. 2006;23(6):644–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Patton MQ. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications Inc; 1990. p. 169–86.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kuzel AJ. Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL, editors. Doing qualitative research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc; 1999. p. 31–44.

  37. Roth AJ, Kornblith AB, Batel-Copel L, Peabody E, Scher HI, Holland JC. Rapid screening for psychologic distress in men with prostate carcinoma: a pilot study. Cancer. 1998;82(10):1904–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Akizuki N, Yamawaki S, Akechi T, Nakano T, Uchitomi Y. Development of an Impact Thermometer for use in combination with the Distress Thermometer as a brief screening tool for adjustment disorders and/or major depression in cancer patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2005;29(1):91–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Donovan KA, Grassi L, McGinty HL, Jacobsen PB. Validation of the distress thermometer worldwide: state of the science. Psychooncology. 2014;23(3):241–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Bidstrup PE, Mertz BG, Dalton SO, Deltour I, Kroman N, Kehlet H, et al. Accuracy of the Danish version of the ‘distress thermometer’. Psychooncology. 2012;21(4):436–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Baken DM, Woolley C. Validation of the Distress Thermometer, Impact Thermometer and combinations of these in screening for distress. Psychooncology. 2011;20(6):609–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kvale S, Brinkmann S. InterViews. Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc; 2009.

  43. Malterud K. Kvalitative metoder i medisinsk forskning—en innføring. 2. Utgave. [Qualitative methods in medical research. 2nd ed.] Oslo: Universitetsforlaget AS; 2003.

  44. Malterud K. Systematic text condensation: a strategy for qualitative analysis. Scand J Public Health. 2012;40(8):795–805.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kettis-Lindblad A, Ring L, Widmark E, Bendtsen P, Glimelius B. Patients’ and doctors’ views of using the schedule for individual quality of life in clinical practice. J Support Oncol. 2007;5(6):281–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Prior L. Repositioning documents in social research. Sociology. 2008;42:821–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Prior L. Documents in Health Research. In: Bourgeault I, Dingwall R, De Vries R, editors. The SAGE handbook of qualitative methods in health research. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2010. p. 417–33.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  48. Ong BN, Hooper H, Jinks C, Dunn K, Croft P. ‘I suppose that depends on how I was feeling at the time’: perspectives on questionnaires measuring quality of life and musculoskeletal pain. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2006;11(2):81–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Mallinson S. Listening to respondents: a qualitative assessment of the Short-Form 36 Health Status Questionnaire. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54(1):11–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Hoeck B, Ledderer L, Hansen HP. Involvement of patients with lung and gynecological cancer and their relatives in psychosocial cancer rehabilitation: a narrative review. Patient. 2015;8(2):127–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Thorne S, Hislop TG, Kim-Sing C, Oglov V, Oliffe JL, Stajduhar KI. Changing communication needs and preferences across the cancer care trajectory: insights from the patient perspective. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22(4):1009–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Baker P, Beesley H, Dinwoodie R, Fletcher I, Ablett J, Holcombe C, et al. ‘You’re putting thoughts into my head’: a qualitative study of the readiness of patients with breast, lung or prostate cancer to address emotional needs through the first 18 months after diagnosis. Psychooncology. 2013;22(6):1402–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Malterud K. Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet. 2001;358(9280):483–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the GPs and patients who kindly participated in this study; the Danish Milieu for Humanistic Cancer Research for supporting a writing retreat for Susanne Thayssen; Lise Keller Stark and Merete Moll Lund for proofreading the manuscript; and Nina Døssing for help with transcribing the interviews.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Research Center of Cancer Rehabilitation, Research Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsløws Vej 9A, 5000, Odense C, Denmark

    Susanne Thayssen, Dorte Gilså Hansen & Jens Søndergaard

  2. Research Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense C, Denmark

    Jens Søndergaard & Helle Ploug Hansen

  3. Interdisciplinary Research Unit, Elective Surgery Centre, Silkeborg Regional Hospital, Silkeborg, Denmark

    Mette Terp Høybye

  4. General Practitioners, Lærkevej 14, Otterup, Denmark

    Palle Mark Christensen

Authors
  1. Susanne Thayssen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dorte Gilså Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jens Søndergaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mette Terp Høybye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Palle Mark Christensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Helle Ploug Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susanne Thayssen.

Ethics declarations

Author contributions

Susanne Thayssen, Dorte Gilså Hansen, Helle Ploug Hansen, Mette Terp Høybye, and Palle Mark Christensen contributed to the conception and design of the study; Susanne Thayssen, Palle Mark Christensen, and Jens Søndergaard were responsible for the recruitment of GPs; Susanne Thayssen conducted the interviews and managed the data; Susanne Thayssen and Helle Ploug Hansen performed the data analysis; and Susanne Thayssen, Dorte Gilså Hansen, Helle Ploug Hansen, Mette Terp Høybye, and Jens Søndergaard contributed to the interpretation of results.

Susanne Thayssen drafted the first version of the manuscript; Susanne Thayssen, Dorte Gilså Hansen, Jens Søndergaard, Mette Terp Høybye, Palle Mark Christensen, and Helle Ploug Hansen critically reviewed, revised and supplemented the manuscript; and all authors approved the final version of the article. Susanne Thayssen is the overall guarantor.

Funding

This study was accomplished thanks to funding from the Danish Research Foundation for General Practice and the National Research Center of Cancer Rehabilitation, Research Unit of General Practice, Odense, Denmark. The National Research Center of Cancer Rehabilitation is partly financed by the Danish Cancer Society.

Ethics approval

Ethics approval was obtained from the local Ethics Committee (s-20122000-5) and the Danish Data Protection Agency (2012-41-0141). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study, and all the participants were informed that they could decline participation at any time.

Conflict of interest

Susanne Thayssen, Helle Ploug Hansen, Palle Mark Christensen, and Mette Terp Høybye declare that they have no conflicts of interest. As the Director of the Research Unit for General Practice, Jens Søndergaard has received several grants for cancer rehabilitation research, and has received financial support from the Danish Cancer Society to travel to a conference on cancer rehabilitation. Dorte Gilså Hansen is Head of the National Research Center of Cancer Rehabilitation, Research Unit of General Practice, and has received research grants from the Danish Cancer Society.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thayssen, S., Hansen, D.G., Søndergaard, J. et al. Completing a Questionnaire at Home Prior to Needs Assessment in General Practice: A Qualitative Study of Cancer Patients’ Experience. Patient 9, 223–230 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0144-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0144-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation