4.6 Article

Coping with breast cancer: between diagnosis and surgery

期刊

JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING
卷 66, 期 1, 页码 149-158

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05210.x

关键词

breast cancer; coping; diagnosis; healthcare professionals; interviews; nurses; preoperative phase; surgery

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Title. Coping with breast cancer: between diagnosis and surgery. Aim. This paper is a report of a descriptive study of coping strategies used by women between diagnosis of breast cancer and surgery. Background. Although research has suggested that the initial phase of breast cancer is important in the overall process of coping, there have been few qualitative studies conducted in the period between diagnosis and surgery to describe women's experiences and coping efforts in the midst of stress. Method. Individual interviews were conducted with 21 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer who were awaiting surgery. Data were collected from February 2006 to February 2007 at a Norwegian university hospital. Transcripts were analysed using methods of qualitative content analysis. Findings. Prominent themes about coping between diagnosis and surgery were: step-by-step, pushing away, business as usual, enjoying life, dealing with emotions, preparing for the worst and positive focus. The women were highly aware of the threat of death, but at the same time hopeful and optimistic. In general, they wanted to be treated as usual. Pity and compassion could increase their feelings of fear and vulnerability. Emotions were dealt with either by openness or by holding back. Conclusion. Avoiding being overwhelmed by emotional reactions was a major goal for the women. Their coping strategies displayed similar patterns but diverged on some points. In general they needed to manage the situation in their own way. By being aware of women's individual needs and different coping strategies, nurses and other healthcare professionals can improve support to women in this vulnerable situation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据