4.6 Article

Cancer patient education in Iran: a descriptive study

Journal

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages 169-173

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-001-0315-2

Keywords

cancer disclosure; cancer communication; patient education; cancer information; Iran

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study was carried out to examine the status of cancer patient education in Iran. Using the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer's (MASCC) patient education questionnaire, 3 10 individuals - a sample of heterogeneous cancer patients (n=167) and their relatives (n=143) - were enrolled in the study. The pooled results indicated that only 15% of respondents believed more than 80% of cancer patients were told of their diagnosis. In contrast, 30% of respondents thought less than 20% of patients knew their cancer diagnosis. When asked, Were you given written materials about (i) cancer, (ii) treatment, and (iii) symptom management, the vast majority of respondents said No (91%, 87%, and 87%, respectively). When respondents were asked, Would you like to learn more about cancer and treatments, 97% said Yes. Most respondents indicated the need for information on the treatments available (27%) and general information about cancer (20%); most had sought information from health professionals (31%), other cancer patients and friends (29%), and television (22%). Finally, it was found that concern about patients' depression (17%). lack of printed materials (13%), the idea that it was better for patients not to know (12%), and families' requests not to tell the patient (11%) were the most frequently stated barriers to or reasons for restricted cancer patient education. The findings of the study suggest that cancer patient education in Iran is very poor and there is an urgent need to develop policy guidelines on disclosure of cancer diagnoses and patient education.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available