4.1 Article

A Qualitative Study on the Needs of Women with Metastatic Breast Cancer

Journal

JOURNAL OF CANCER EDUCATION
Volume 37, Issue 5, Pages 1322-1331

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13187-020-01954-4

Keywords

Metastatic breast cancer; Needs; Oncology; Chronicity; Multidisciplinary; Policies

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study aims to understand the needs of patients with metastatic breast cancer, and identified four themes through thematic analysis: the need for clinical recognition, more attention from healthcare professionals, more and better services available at the hospital, and specific public health policies. The findings suggest that changes in attitudes and multidisciplinary practices are needed to meet these needs in the metastatic phase of breast cancer.
Few studies have investigated the needs of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), and none have been conducted in Italy. Three categories of needs have been identified from the literature: information, support, and practical resources. The present study aims to achieve an in-depth understanding of the patients' needs related to the MBC care pathway. In-depth interviews were conducted and analyzed by thematic analysis. The participants were 9 women with MBC (age range 36-74) who were enrolled at the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionalde dei tumori, in Milan. The analysis enabled us to identify four themes (which reflect the needs of the participants), each divided into numerous sub-themes: (1) the need for clinical recognition, (2) the need for more attention from healthcare professionals, (3) the need for more and better services to be available at the hospital, (4) the need for specific public health policies. Since the metastatic phase of breast cancer seems to elicit additional, specific needs and multi-level management, changes in attitudes and multidisciplinary practices should be tested in order to ascertain how these needs can be met.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available