Search

Background: Studies have highlighted how advanced prostate cancer causes biographical disruption and presents challenges to masculine identities for men. This article draws on a wider study that focused on the experiences of men living with advanced prostate cancer and their caregivers. Although men's experience of advanced illness is not overlooked in the literature, only a small body of work has taken an in-depth look at men's experiences with advanced prostate cancer and their caregivers in a non-Westernised cultural and social context. Objective: To explore how advanced prostate cancer impacts on men's masculine identity from the perspective of patients and their caregivers. Methods: A qualitative study of men living with advanced prostate cancer (n = 23) and family caregivers (n = 23) in Ghana. We used the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ) as the reporting guideline. Results: The findings from this study highlight profound challenges for most men to their masculine identities, from both the treatment and the symptoms of advanced prostate cancer within a non-Westernised, patriarchal society. Four main themes were developed. These were the impact on masculinity in terms of: (1) physical changes, (2) sexual ability, (3) socio-economic roles and (4) expressing emotions. Changes in physical appearance, feeling belittled, having no active sexual life and the inability to continue acting as provider and protector of the family made some men describe their situation as one of moving out of the 'frying pan into the fire'. Conclusion: This study revealed the impact of advanced prostate cancer on masculine identity. These narratives add a new dimension to what is already known about the impacts on men's masculine identities when dealing with advanced prostate cancer. This knowledge can help improve the care provided to men with advanced prostate cancer with emphasis on the cultures, beliefs and aspirations of these men and their caregivers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Support from social networks is vital after the death of a partner. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender (LGBT+) people can face disenfranchisement and isolation in bereavement. The Acceptance-Disclosure Model (of LGBT+ bereavement) posits that experiences are shaped by the extent to which individuals feel able to disclose their bereavement to others, and whether that loss is acknowledged appropriately. Aim: To explore LGBT+ specific experiences of partner bereavement; determine decision-making processes regarding disclosure of relationships/identities; and appraise the Acceptance-Disclosure Model using primary qualitative data. Design: Exploratory in-depth qualitative interview study positioned within a social constructivist paradigm. Data were analysed using inductive and deductive reflexive thematic analysis. Setting/participants: 21 LGBT+ people from across England bereaved of their civil partner/spouse. Results: Participants described LGBT+ specific stressors in bereavement: lack of recognition of their loss; inappropriate questioning; unwanted disclosure of gender history; and fears of discrimination when accessing support. Disclosure of LGBT+ identities varied across social networks. Some participants described hiding their identities and bereavement to preserve relationships, and challenging intersections between LGBT+ identities and other aspects of culture or self. These findings provide primary evidence to support the Acceptance-Disclosure Model. Conclusions: LGBT+ people face additional stressors in bereavement. Not all LGBT+ people want to talk directly about their relationships/identities. Sensitive exploration of support needs, aligned with preferences around disclosure of identities, can help foster trust. Five recommendations for inclusive practice are presented. Further research should consider whether the Acceptance-Disclosure Model has utility to explain bereavement experiences for other isolated or disenfranchised groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Families and professionals caring for children with life-limiting conditions face difficult healthcare decisions. Shared decision-making is promoted in many countries, however little is known about factors influencing these processes. Aim: To explore the communication strategies used in shared decision-making for children with life-limiting conditions. Design: A longitudinal, qualitative, multiple-case study. Cases were centred around the child and parent/carer(s). Most cases also included professionals or extended family members. Data from interviews, observations and medical notes were re-storied for each case into a narrative case summary. These were subject to comparative thematic analysis using NVivo11. Setting/participants: Eleven cases recruited from three tertiary hospitals in England. 23 participants were interviewed (46 interviews). Cases were followed for up to 12 months between December 2015 and January 2017. 72 observations were conducted and the medical notes of nine children reviewed. Findings: Strategies present during shared decision-making were underpinned by moral work. Professionals presented options they believed were in the child's best interests, emphasising their preference. Options were often presented in advance of being necessary to prevent harm, therefore professionals permitted delay to treatment. Persuasion was utilised over time when professionals felt the treatment was becoming more urgent and when families felt it would not promote the child's psychosocial wellbeing. Conclusions: Communication strategies in shared decision-making are underpinned by moral work. Professionals should be aware of the models of shared decision-making which include such communication strategies. Open discussions regarding individuals' moral reasoning may assist the process of shared decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Family caregiving is common globally, but when a family member needs palliative and end-of-life care, this requires knowledge and expertise in dealing with symptoms, medication, and treatment side effects. Caring for a family member with advanced prostate cancer in the home presents practical and emotional challenges, especially in resource-poor contexts, where there are increasing palliative cases without adequate palliative care institutions. Aim: The study explored palliative and end-of-life care experiences of family caregivers and patients living at home in a resource-poor context in Ghana. Design: This is a qualitative study using thematic analysis of face-to-face interviews at two-time points. Participants: Men living with advanced prostate cancer (n = 23), family caregivers (n = 23), healthcare professionals (n = 12). Findings: Men with advanced prostate cancer face complex issues, including lack of access to professional care and a lack of resources for homecare. Family caregivers do not have easy access to professional support; they often have limited knowledge of disease progression. Patients have inadequate access to medication and other practical resources for homecare. Caregivers may be overburdened and perform the role of the patient's 'doctor' at home-assessing patient's symptoms, administering drugs, and providing hands-on care. Conclusion: Home-based care is promoted as an ideal and cost-effective model of care, particularly in Westernised palliative care models. However, in resource-poor contexts, there are significant challenges associated with the implementation of this model. This study revealed the scale of challenges family caregivers, who lack basic training on aspects of caring, face in providing home care unsupported by healthcare professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or trans (LGBT) people have higher risk of certain life-limiting illnesses and unmet needs in advanced illness and bereavement. ACCESSCare is the first national study to examine in depth the experiences of LGBT people facing advanced illness. Aim: To explore health-care experiences of LGBT people facing advanced illness to elicit views regarding sharing identity (sexual orientation/gender history), accessing services, discrimination/exclusion and best-practice examples. Design: Semi-structured in-depth qualitative interviews analysed using thematic analysis. Setting/participants: In total, 40 LGBT people from across the United Kingdom facing advanced illness: cancer (n = 21), non-cancer (n = 16) and both a cancer and a non-cancer conditions (n = 3). Results: In total, five main themes emerged: (1) person-centred care needs that may require additional/different consideration for LGBT people (including different social support structures and additional legal concerns), (2) service level or interactional (created in the consultation) barriers/stressors (including heteronormative assumptions and homophobic/transphobic behaviours), (3) invisible barriers/stressors (including the historical context of pathology/criminalisation, fears and experiences of discrimination) and (4) service level or interactional facilitators (including acknowledging and including partners in critical discussions). These all shape (5) individuals' preferences for disclosing identity. Prior experiences of discrimination or violence, in response to disclosure, were carried into future care interactions and heightened with the frailty of advanced illness. Conclusion: Despite recent legislative change, experiences of discrimination and exclusion in health care persist for LGBT people. Ten recommendations, for health-care professionals and services/institutions, are made from the data. These are simple, low cost and offer potential gains in access to, and outcomes of, care for LGBT people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study explores with patients, carers and health care professionals if, when and how Advance Care Planning conversations about patients' preferences for place of care (and death) were facilitated and documented. Methods: The study adopted an exploratory case study design using qualitative interviews, across five services delivering palliative care to cancer and non-cancer patients within an urban and rural English region. The study recruited 18 cases made up of patients (N = 18; 10 men; 8 women; median age 75); nominated relatives (N = 11; 7 women; 4 men; median age 65) and healthcare professionals (N = 15) caring for the patient. Data collection included: 18 initial interviews (nine separate interviews with patients and 9 joint interviews with patients and relatives) and follow up interviews in 6 cases (involving a total of 5 patients and 5 relatives) within one year of the first interview. Five group interviews were conducted with 15 healthcare professionals; 8 of whom also participated in follow up interviews to review their involvement with patients in our study. Results: Patients demonstrated varying degrees of reticence, evasion or reluctance to initiate any conversations about end of life care preferences. Most assumed that staff would initiate such conversations, while staff were often hesitant to do so. Staff-identified barriers included the perceived risks of taking away hope and issues of timing. Staff were often guided by cues from the patient or by intuition about when to initiate these discussions. Conclusions: This study provides insights into the complexities surrounding the initiation of Advance Care Planning involving conversations about end of life care preferences with patients who are identified as having palliative care needs, in particular in relation to the risks inherent in the process of having conversations where mortality must be acknowledged. Future research is needed to examine how to develop interventions to help initiate conversations to develop person centred plans to manage the end of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Advance care planning (ACP) is a process of discussion about goals of care and a means of setting on record preferences for care of patients who may lose capacity or communication ability in the future. Implementation of ACP is widely promoted by policy makers. This study examined how community palliative care nurses in England understand ACP and their roles within ACP. It sought to identify factors surrounding community nurses' implementation of ACP and nurses' educational needs. Methods: An action research strategy was employed. 23 community nurses from two cancer networks in England were recruited to 6 focus group discussions and three follow up workshops. Data were analysed using a constant comparison approach. Findings: Nurses understood ACP to be an important part of practice and to have the potential to be a celebration of good nursing care. Nurses saw their roles in ACP as engaging with patients to elicit care preferences, facilitate family communication and enable a shift of care focus towards palliative care. They perceived challenges to ACP including: timing, how to effect team working in ACP, the policy focus on instructional directives which related poorly to patients' concerns; managing differences in patients' and families' views. Perceived barriers included: lack of resources; lack of public awareness about ACP; difficulties in talking about death. Nurses recommended the following to be included in education programmes: design of realistic scenarios; design of a flow chart; practical advice about communication and documentation; insights into the need for clinical supervision for ACP practice. Conclusions: Nurses working in the community are centrally involved with patients with palliative care needs who may wish to set on record their views about future care and treatment. This study reveals some important areas for practice and educational development to enhance nurses' use and understanding of ACP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is often suggested that in carrying out research into the lives of LGBT people, researchers have an advantage if they share the same sexual orientation with their respondents - including greater access to respondents and the production of research accounts that perhaps have greater validity. However the process of doing research and writing up research is more complex than this suggests. In this article I seek to examine some of these assumptions in greater depth. A central (although not exclusive) concern of feminist debates is the extent to which the researcher's identity and experiences impact on the processes of doing research - and as such, the extent to which these should be made explicit. In examining some of these complexities, I draw upon these debates, the experiences of other researchers in the field of LGBT research and my own research examining the family lives of twenty lesbian parent families in the UK. I conclude that the ways in which the researcher may be positioned as an insider/outsider in research can be complex and these issues are particularly salient when choosing research topics to which the researcher has some level of personal and/or political commitment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a qualitative research that investigated 20 lesbian parent families in Great Britain who had planned and had their first child together. The study explores the dimensions of coming out of lesbian parents who have children to an openly lesbian relationship. It shows that lesbian parents encounter new situations with a new range of people, settings and networks. Decisions on where and how to come out in the new settings are involved in the negotiating recognition of their parental and familial condition. They also engage in renegotiations of an acceptance of their lesbian identity and parenthood with their family members. Stigma theory is used to examine some of the complexities related to the decisions and negotiations involved in being out as lesbian families.