Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Involvement of Patients with Lung and Gynecological Cancer and Their Relatives in Psychosocial Cancer Rehabilitation: A Narrative Review

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

Abstract

Introduction

Getting cancer is stressful for most patients and their relatives, and research has shown that psychosocial support is needed. Still, cancer care fails to appropriately address psychosocial problems associated with cancer. Research on this topic is often seen from the perspective of either the patient or the relative, even though it is suggested that psychosocial support is beneficial for the patient and the relative as a pair. Furthermore, research on the need for psychosocial support rarely involves patients with gynecological and lung cancer and their relatives, even though they often suffer from isolation and stigmatization. The aim of this review was therefore to summarize knowledge about psychosocial support with regard to individual needs, involvement of significant others, and providers of psychosocial support focusing on this specific population.

Method

A narrative review procedure was chosen. This method is a specific kind of review, which summarizes, explains, and interprets evidence on a selected topic. The review process was structured according to typical scholarly articles with attention to the search and review process.

Results

A total of 16 studies were included in the review. The studies were divided into two main categories: (1) studies focusing on needs for psychosocial support; and (2) studies focusing on interventions. The needs studies were analyzed, and three themes emerged: the needs of the patient and the significant other across the cancer trajectory; the needs of the significant other as a carer; and needs and ongoing and tailored support. The intervention studies were directed toward the patient and the relative, the patient, or the relative. Five interventions comprising various forms of support that were purely supportive and were carried out by healthcare professionals were identified.

Conclusion

There were overlaps between the needs of the patient and the relative, but there were also distinctive characteristics of the needs in the two groups. The needs varied during the cancer trajectory, and we therefore recommend that support be offered continuously. It was also evident that the relatives should be involved in the patients’ care and that the involvement was beneficial for both the patient and the relative.

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. Galway K, Black A, Cantwell M, Cardwell CR, Mills M, Donnelly M. Psychosocial interventions to improve quality of life and emotional wellbeing for recently diagnosed cancer patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;11:CD007064.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 

  3. Johnson RL, Gold MA, Wyche KF. Distress in women with gynecologic cancer. Psychooncology. 2010;19(6):665–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ka’opua LS, Gotay CC, Boehm PS. Spiritually based resources in adaptation to long-term prostate cancer survival: perspectives of elderly wives. Health Soc Work. 2007;32(1):29–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Scott JL, Halford WK, Ward BG. United we stand? The effects of a couple–coping intervention on adjustment to early stage breast or gynecological cancer. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2004;72(6):1122–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Adler NE, Page AEK. Cancer care for the whole patient: meeting psychosocial health needs. Washington: National Academies; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Thorsen L, Gjerset GM, Loge JH, Kiserud CE, Skovlund E, Flotten T, et al. Cancer patients’ needs for rehabilitation services. Acta Oncol. 2011;50(2):212–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ernstmann N, Neumann M, Ommen O, Galushko M, Wirtz M, Voltz R, et al. Determinants and implications of cancer patients’ psychosocial needs. Support Care Cancer. 2009;17(11):1417–23.

    Article  CAS  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. 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 

  12. 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 

  13. 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 

  14. Sutton LB, Erlen JA. Effects of mutual dyad support on quality of life in women with breast cancer. Cancer Nurs. 2006;29(6):488–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. McLean LM, Jones JM, Rydall AC, Walsh A, Esplen MJ, Zimmermann C, et al. A couples intervention for patients facing advanced cancer and their spouse caregivers: outcomes of a pilot study. Psychooncology. 2008;17(11):1152–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Morgan MA, Small BJ, Donovan KA, Overcash J, McMillan S. Cancer patients with pain the spouse/partner relationship and quality of life. Cancer Nurs. 2011;34(1):13–23.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chambers SK, Pinnock C, Lepore SJ, Hughes S, O’Connell DL. A systematic review of psychosocial interventions for men with prostate cancer and their partners. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;85(2):e75–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 

  19. La Cour K, Ledderer L, Hansen HP. “An arena for sharing”: exploring the joint involvement of patients and their relatives in a cancer rehabilitation study. Cancer Nurs. doi:10.1097/NCC.0000000000000149. (Epub 2014 May 14 [cited 2014 June 6]).

  20. Ledderer L, La Cour K, Mogensen O, Jakobsen E, Depont CR, Kragstrup J, 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 

  21. Ledderer L, La Cour K, Hansen HP. Outcome of supportive talks in a hospital setting: insights from cancer patients and their relatives. Patient. 2014;7(2):219–29.

  22. Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. New York: Springer; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park: Sage; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mays N, Pope C, Popay J. Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(Suppl 1):6–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Haneline M. Understanding literature review designs. J Am Chiropr Assoc. 2007; 19–23.

  26. Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones DR, Young B, Sutton AJ. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(1):45–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cooper HM. Research synthesis and meta-analysis. 4th ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Paterson BL, Thorne S, Canam C, Jillings C. Meta-study of qualitative health research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jones ML. Application of systematic review methods to qualitative research: practical issues. J Adv Nurs. 2004;48(3):271–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research. Br Med J. 2000;320(7226):50–2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Walsh D, Downe S. Appraising the quality of qualitative research. Midwifery. 2006;22:108–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Rolfe G. Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: quality and the idea of qualitative research. J Adv Nurs. 2006;53(3):304–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Dixon-Woods M, Booth A, Sutton AJ. Synthesizing qualitative research: a review of published reports. Qual Res. 2007;7(3):375–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Dixon-Woods M, Sutton A, Shaw R, Miller T, Smith J, Young B, et al. Appraising qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a quantitative and qualitative comparison of three methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12(1):42–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hansen HP, Lee A, van Randwijk CB. Patient aspects: a review of fifty-eight Danish HTA reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(4):330–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hoeck B. A clinically oriented and practice driven approach to metasynthesis: a worked example on “being critically ill in an ICU”. Aarhus: University of Aarhus; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hansen HP, Draborg E, Kristensen FB. Exploring qualitative research synthesis: the role of patients’ perspectives in health policy design and decision making. Patient. 2011;4(3):143–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Evans D. Systematic reviews of interpretive research: interpretive data synthesis of processed data. Aust J Adv Nurs. 2002;20(2):22–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000;23:334–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Akyuz A, Guvenc G, Ustunsoz A, Kaya T. Living with gynecologic cancer: experience of women and their partners. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2008;40(3):241–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Badr H, Taylor CL. Social constraints and spousal communication in lung cancer. Psychooncology. 2006;15(8):673–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 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 

  43. 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 

  44. Krishnasamy M, Wells M, Wilkie E. Patients and carer experiences of care provision after a diagnosis of lung cancer in Scotland. Support Care Cancer. 2007;15(3):327–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Griffiths J, Willard C, Burgess A, Amir Z, Luker K. Meeting the ongoing needs of survivors of rarer cancer. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2007;11(5):434–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Mikkelsen TH, Sondergaard J, Jensen AB, Olesen F. Cancer rehabilitation: psychosocial rehabilitation needs after discharge from hospital? Scan J Prim Health Care. 2008;26(4):216–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Koldjeski D, Kirkpatrick MK, Everett L, Brown S, Swanson M. The ovarian cancer journey of families the first postdiagnostic year. Cancer Nurs. 2007;30(3):232–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 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 

  49. Cox A, Bull E, Cockle-Hearne J, Knibb W, Potter C, Faithfull S. Nurse led telephone follow up in ovarian cancer: a psychosocial perspective. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2008;12(5):412–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Pistrang N, Jay Z, Gessler S, Barker C. Telephone peer support for women with gynaecological cancer: recipients’ perspectives. Psychooncology. 2012;21(10):1082–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Walker LM, Bischoff TF, Robinson JW. Supportive expressive group therapy for women with advanced ovarian cancer. Int J Group Psychother. 2010;60(3):407–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Sekse RJ, Blaaka G, Buestad I, Tengesdal E, Paulsen A, Vika M. Education and counselling group intervention for women treated for gynaecological cancer: does it help? Scand J Caring Sci. 2014;28(1):112–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Nissim R, Freeman E, Lo C, Zimmermann C, Gagliese L, Rydall A, et al. Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully (CALM): a qualitative study of a brief individual psychotherapy for individuals with advanced cancer. Palliat Med. 2012;26(5):713–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Richardson A, Plant H, Moore S, Medina J, Cornwall A, Ream E. Developing supportive care for family members of people with lung cancer: a feasibility study. Supportive Care Cancer. 2007;15(11):1259–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Ryan PJ, Howell V, Jones J, Hardy EJ. Lung cancer, caring for the caregivers: a qualitative study of providing pro-active social support targeted to the carers of patients with lung cancer. Palliat Med. 2008;22(3):233–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Source of Funding

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

Author contributions

Bente Hoeck was primarily responsible for the manuscript preparation, with contributions from Loni Ledderer and Helle Ploug Hansen. All authors were involved in critically revising the manuscript, and 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. Loni Ledderer led the project.

Conflicts of interest

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. General Practice, Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, J. B. Winsløws Vej 9, 5000, Odense C, Denmark

    Bente Hoeck & Helle Ploug Hansen

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

    Loni Ledderer

Authors
  1. Bente Hoeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Loni Ledderer
    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 Bente Hoeck.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hoeck, B., Ledderer, L. & Hansen, H.P. Involvement of Patients with Lung and Gynecological Cancer and Their Relatives in Psychosocial Cancer Rehabilitation: A Narrative Review. Patient 8, 127–143 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0076-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0076-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation