4.5 Article

Cancer patients' information needs and information seeking behaviour: in depth interview study

Journal

BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
Volume 320, Issue 7239, Pages 909-913

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.320.7239.909

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To explore why cancer patients do riot want or seek information about their condition beyond that volunteered by their physicians at times during their illness. Design Qualitative study based on in-depth interviews. Setting Outpatient oncology clinics at a London cancer centre. Participants 17 patients with cancer diagnosed in previous 6 months. Main outcome measures Analysis of patients narratives to identify key themes and categories. Results While all patients wanted basic information on diagnosis and treatment, not all wanted further information at all stages of their illness. Three overarching attitudes to their management of cancel limited patients' desire for and subsequent efforts to obtain further information: faith, hope, and charity: Faith in their doctor's medical expertise precluded the need for patients to seek further information themselves. Hope was essential for patients to carry on with life as normal and could be maintained through silence and avoiding information, especially too detailed or unsafe information. Charity to fellow patients, especially those seen as more needy than themselves, was expressed in the recognition that scarce resources-including information and explanations-had to be shared and meant that limited Information was accepted as inevitable. Conclusions Cancer patients' attitudes to cancer. and their strategies for coping with their illness can constrain their wish for information and their, efforts to obtain it. In developing recommendations, the government's cancer information strategy should attend to variations in patients' desires for information and the reasons for them.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available