Search

Illness stories are a prime analytical way of understanding patient perspectives on cancer. Nevertheless, limited studies have focused on stories of endometrial cancer. An ethnographic study including participant observation and interviews among 18 Danish women with endometrial cancer was conducted to examine prevalent stories and the ways the women responded to them. In this article, the analysis focuses on two exemplary cases, which present a line of issues related to the kinds of experiences that suffering includes. Findings illustrate that feelings of luck were central to the experience of being diagnosed, treated and cured, which was related to the way health professionals framed endometrial cancer as favourable through notions of curable/incurable, trivial and gentle/invasive and brutal, and aggressive/non‐aggressive. Drawing upon the concept of a 'hierarchy of suffering', we exemplify how women tended to scale own experiences of suffering against others', leading some to believe they were not in a legitimate position to draw attention to themselves nor seek help and support, despite adverse physical, psychosocial effects. Thus, feelings of being lucky were intertwined with a sense of ambivalence. We conclude by discussing how suffering arises within a moral context, suggesting that the ways we speak of cancer may make some experiences unspeakable. This calls for increased clinical attention to more diverse narratives of cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: International guidelines recommend health care professionals to use supportive tools like questionnaires when assessing cancer patients' needs. Little is known about GPs' perspectives and experience in this regard.Objective: To examine how GPs experience to involve a short questionnaire, completed by patients' prior to a consultation, when addressing the patients' problems and needs. The aim is to contribute to the knowledge concerning the use of questionnaires as part of clinical cancer care in general practice.Methods: Semi-structured individual interviews with 11 GPs in the Region of Southern Denmark purposefully sampled with regard to gender, years working in general practice and practice form. Interviews were analyzed using systematic text condensation.Results: Most GPs found that using the questionnaire provided a supportive structure to the consultation. The questionnaire helped to bring forward issues of importance to the patients, which might otherwise not have been mentioned and enhanced a patient-centered approach. A few GPs found the use of the questionnaire to be restraining, detracting focus from the patient and impede usual practice.Conclusions: This study shows that using questionnaires may have the potential to improve clinical cancer care in general practice in relation to needs assessment of cancer patients and the results support current recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical guidelines are considered to be essential for improving quality and safety of health care. However, interventions to promote implementation of guidelines have demonstrated only partial effectiveness and the reasons for this apparent failure are not yet fully understood.Objective: To investigate how GPs implement clinical guidelines in everyday clinical practice and how implementation approaches differ between practices.Methods: Individual semi-structured open-ended interviews with seven GPs who were purposefully sampled with regard to gender, age and practice form. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and then analysed using systematic text condensation.Results: Analysis of the interviews revealed three different approaches to the implementation of guidelines in clinical practice. In some practices the GPs prioritized time and resources on collective implementation activities and organized their everyday practice to support these activities. In other practices GPs discussed guidelines collectively but left the application up to the individual GP whilst others again saw no need for discussion or collective activities depending entirely on the individual GP's decision on whether and how to manage implementation.Conclusion: Approaches to implementation of clinical guidelines vary substantially between practices. Supporting activities should take this into account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of an eHealth intervention (interactive website) on pregnant women's ability to make an informed choice about Down syndrome screening.Material and Methods: The study was designed as a randomized controlled trial with allocation to an intervention group and a control group in a ratio of 1:1. Subsequent subgroup analysis was conducted. Participants were recruited from 5 August 2013 to 25 April 2014 at Odense University Hospital, Denmark. Inclusion criteria were: pregnant women aged ≥18 years who were invited to participate in Down syndrome screening. Exclusion criteria were: high risk of abortion, psycho-socially vulnerable women, late referral, inability to speak Danish and women declining to participate. The primary outcome was informed choice about Down syndrome screening. The Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice was used to assess whether the choice was informed or uninformed.Results: A total of 1150 participants were included in the study, of which 910 (79%) completed the questionnaire. Only a minority (30% of the women in the intervention group) actually used the website. There was no significant difference in the groups with respect to making an informed choice. The mean knowledge scores were significantly higher for those in the intervention group who used the intervention.Conclusions: An interactive website with information about Down syndrome screening had no direct effect on making an informed choice. However, the majority of the pregnant women who used the website were satisfied with the website and would recommend it to others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]