Search

Previous research has indicated that treatment staff often underestimate the informational needs of cancer patients. In this study, the authors determined the total number of information sources obtained and used to influence treatment decisions, and the clinical and demographic factors associated with the use of specific sources of information in cancer patients. Participants were identified by the statewide cancer registry and diagnosed in 2004 with breast, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer. A self-administered mailed questionnaire elicited cancer treatments, demographics, and information sources used to make treatment decisions. Of those surveyed, 1,784 (66%) participated and responded to all questions regarding information use. Over 69% of study participants reported obtaining information from a source other than the treatment staff. Significant predictors of using additional information sources included younger age, higher income, higher education, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use, and reporting shared decision making (all p values <.01). Participants with a college degree were more likely to use the Internet (OR 3.7; 95% CI 1.5-9.0) and scientific research reports (OR 3.3; 95% CI 1.6-6.9) to influence treatment decisions compared with those without a high school degree. Support group use to influence treatment decisions was not associated with socioeconomic variables but did vary by cancer type and CAM use. The sources of information study participants obtained and used to influence treatment decisions varied strongly by socioeconomic and demographic variables. These findings provide a deeper understanding of the information needs of cancer patients and have implications for dissemination strategies that can minimize disparities in access to cancer information.

The Satisfaction with Life Domains Scale for Cancer (SLDS-C) is a brief self-report measure of quality of life that uses a familiar and easily understood graphic response format of smiling and frowning faces. This article explores the factor structure and further examines the validity of the SLDS-C compared with another cancer specific quality-of-life measure, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale-General (FACT-G), in a sample of patients with a variety of cancer diagnoses. A self-administered questionnaire containing the SLDS-C and the FACT-G was completed by 352 adult cancer survivors who were at various points post diagnosis. Three SLDS-C factor subscales were derived from analyses of these data: "Life as a Whole," "Daily Activities," and "Social Relationships." Evidence for the concurrent validity of the SLDS-C is presented, including its correlation with the total score of the FACT-G (r = .76) and its correlation with subscale scores of this widely used cancer quality-of-life measure. The SLDS-C has a high level of internal consistency (alpha = .94), and differences in SLDS-C total scores were found for time since diagnosis, number of diagnoses, spread of disease, type of cancer, and treatment status.

Background: Providing medical services to rural residents results in unique challenges to providers and patients. Cancer screening (CS) and early detection services (EDS) are frequently underutilized with rural residents often presenting with advanced cancer at diagnosis. A comprehensive approach to determine barriers and overcome them constitutes "The Greater Marshfield Experience.", Methods: Focus groups with rural residents determined the greatest barriers to receipt of CS and EDS were distance, cost, time from work and self-reliant behavior. Directives to address these concerns were to keep information simple and provide services at the workplace. In response, Marshfield Clinic and its research division developed a collaborative research partnership with public health agencies (PHA), federally funded government programs and volunteer agencies., Results: In-house activities to remove barriers for providing CS and EDS included the development of a separate screening unit for these activities. Reminder systems were employed to notify patients of the need and availability of preventative services. Co-payments for health screening services were eliminated from the clinic owned health plan. Area residents near poverty level were encouraged to enroll in federally subsidized health plans that promoted and paid for CS and EDS. Federally funded cancer screening studies were implemented that funded breast and cervical cancer screening and evaluated the benefits of screening for prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancers (PLCO). Outreach activities included developing partnerships with local PHA and minority groups and providing mobile screening services to remote areas., Conclusion: Concentrated, collaborative efforts to develop in-house systems and outreach activities resulted in delivery of CS and EDS in remote areas.

To respond to major needs expressed by 15 farm family focus group participants, education interventions were designed to overcome barriers to primary prevention for skin cancer. Farmers are at high risk for developing skin cancer because of occupational exposure. In an attempt to increase skin cancer prevention education in a rural population, three demonstration projects were developed and field tested. Projects were designed to overcome barriers defined by the focus groups. One project evaluated a school-based education intervention. A second project evaluated a family-based education intervention. Knowledge gain was the evaluation endpoint of these two projects. Significant knowledge gain was demonstrated for these projects. A third project was designed to deliver skin cancer information directly to farmers using veterinarians. Farmers found this method of delivery acceptable.