4.2 Article

Lung Cancer Stigma Predicts Timing of Medical Help-Seeking Behavior

期刊

ONCOLOGY NURSING FORUM
卷 41, 期 3, 页码 E203-E210

出版社

ONCOLOGY NURSING SOC
DOI: 10.1188/14.ONF.E203-E210

关键词

lung cancer; decision making; healthcare system distrust; lung cancer stigma; medical help-seeking behavior

资金

  1. National Institute of Nursing Research [5T32 NR007066]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose/Objectives: To examine relationships among demographic variables, healthcare system distrust, lung cancer stigma, smoking status, and timing of medical help seeking behavior in individuals with symptoms suggestive of lung cancer after controlling for ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and social desirability. Design: Descriptive, cross-sectional, correlational study. Setting: Outpatient oncology clinics in Louisville, KY. Sample: 94 patients diagnosed in the past three weeks to six years with all stages of lung cancer. Methods: Self-report, written survey packets were administered in person followed by a semistructured interview to assess symptoms and timing characteristics of practice-identified patients with lung cancer. Main Research Variables: Timing of medical help seeking behavior, healthcare system distrust, lung cancer stigma, and smoking status. Findings: Lung cancer stigma was independently associated with timing of medical help seeking behavior in patients with lung cancer. Healthcare system distrust and smoking status were not independently associated with timing of medical help seeking behavior. Conclusions: Findings suggest that stigma influences medical help seeking behavior for lung cancer symptoms, serving as a barrier to prompt medical help seeking behavior. Implications for Nursing: When designing interventions to promote early medical help seeking behavior in individuals with symptoms suggestive of lung cancer, methods that consider lung cancer stigma as a barrier that can be addressed through public awareness and patient-targeted interventions should be included.

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

4.2
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