Advertisement

Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 907–916 | Cite as

Labeled as lucky: contradictions between what women and healthcare professionals experience regarding the need for help after the early stages of gynecological cancer

  • Lise Bjerrum ThistedEmail author
  • Vibeke Zoffmann
  • Mette Linnet Olesen
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To explore how participants perceived a nurse-led, person-centered intervention, Guided Self-Determination Gynecological Cancer (GSD-GYN-C) and how participants felt it influenced the challenges they faced and their rehabilitation after gynecological cancer surgery.

Methods

Participants were invited from a previously conducted randomized trial where GSD-GYN-C improved physical quality of life in the intervention group. Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results

Three central themes were identified: (1) “labeled as the lucky ones,” which describes a contrast between the women’s perceived problems and the healthcare professionals’ tendency to stress their luck in being treated early and cured with no particular problems in sight, leading to an unintended delay in their rehabilitation process; (2) “personal reflections pave the way for change,” which shows how new problem-solving skills were mobilized when reflection sheets and dialogue on GSD-GYN-C provided new insight into their situation and the feeling of being taken seriously; and (3) “emerging relational competence,” which describes the new skills the women developed in interacting with family, friends, colleagues, and healthcare professionals.

Conclusions

As a supplement to usual care, GSD-GYN-C remedied a tendency among healthcare professionals to underestimate problems in the early stages of gynecological cancer, and GSD-GYN-C involved the women in their rehabilitation process characterized by active problem-solving in relationships with other people.

Keywords

Gynecological cancer Rehabilitation Nurse-led intervention Guided self-determination Empowerment Self-management 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the women and nurses who took part in the project including Mette Gotthardsen for assisting with interviews. We appreciate the Oncology Ward at Finsen Centre, Rigshospitalet Copenhagen University Hospital, for contributing with workhours and financing the English translation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Kjær TK (2017) Sundhedsstyrelsen. Vidensopsamling på senfølger efter kræft hos voksne: Sundhedsstyrelsen. Available from: https://www.sst.dk/da/udgivelser/2017/~/media/67E78B9688DE444BA77743BC9705D899.ashx
  2. 2.
    Colombo N, Creutzberg C, Amant F, Bosse T, González-Martín A, Ledermann J, Marth C, Nout R, Querleu D, Mirza MR, Sessa C, ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO Endometrial Consensus Conference Working Group (2016) ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO consensus conference on endometrial cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Int J Gynecol Cancer 26(1):2–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kristensen SE, Mosgaard BJ, Rosendahl M, Dalsgaard T, Bjorn SF, Froding LP et al (2017) Robot-assisted surgery in gynecological oncology: current status and controversies on patient benefits, cost and surgeon conditions - a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 96(3):274–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Herling SF, Palle C, Moeller AM, Thomsen T (2016) The experience of robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy for women treated for early-stage endometrial cancer: a qualitative study. Cancer Nurs 39(2):125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sekse RJ, Raaheim M, Blaaka G, Gjengedal E (2010) Life beyond cancer: women’s experiences 5 years after treatment for gynaecological cancer. Scand J Caring Sci 24(4):799–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Steele R, Fitch MI (2008) Supportive care needs of women with gynecologic cancer. Cancer Nurs 31(4):284–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chase DM, Monk BJ, Wenzel LB, Tewari KS (2008) Supportive care for women with gynecologic cancers. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 8(2):227–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jacobs LA, Shulman LN (2017) Follow-up care of cancer survivors: challenges and solutions. The Lancet Oncology 18(1):e19–e29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sandsund C, Pattison N, Doyle N, Shaw C (2013) Finding a new normal: a grounded theory study of rehabilitation after treatment for upper gastrointestinal or gynaecological cancers--the patient’s perspective. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 22(2):232–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Danish H, Medicines A. Opfølgningsprogram for gynækologisk kræft [follow-up program for gynecological cancer]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Health and Medicines Authority; 2015. Contract No: ReportGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    WHO. Concept Paper. WHO guidelines on health-related rehabilitation (rehabilitation guidelines). 2011Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Olesen ML, Hansson H, Ottesen B, Thranov IR, Thisted LB, Zoffmann V (2015) The psychosocial needs of gynaecological cancer survivors: a framework for the development of a complex intervention. European journal of oncology nursing: the official journal of European Oncology Nursing Society 19(4):349–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zoffmann V (2004) Guided self-determination: a life skills approach developed in difficult type 1 diabetes. Fællestrykkeriet for Sundhedsvidenskab, Aarhus Universitet: Faculty of Health Sciences, University of AarhusGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Husted GR, Esbensen BA, Hommel E, Thorsteinsson B, Zoffmann V (2014) Adolescents developing life skills for managing type 1 diabetes: a qualitative, realistic evaluation of a guided self-determination-youth intervention. J Adv Nurs 70(11):2634–2650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Olesen ML, Duun-Henriksen AK, Hansson H, Ottesen B, Andersen KK, Zoffmann V (2016) A person-centered intervention targeting the psychosocial needs of gynecological cancer survivors: a randomized clinical trial. Journal of cancer survivorship: research and practice 10(5):832–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kvale S, Brinkmann S (2014. xviii) Interviews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. 3 ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, p 405Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3:77–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sandsund C, Towers R, Thomas K, Tigue R, Lalji A, Fernandes A, Doyle N., Jordan J., Gage H., Shaw C. Holistic needs assessment and care plans for women with gynaecological cancer: do they improve cancer-specific health-related quality of life? A randomised controlled trial using mixed methods. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2017Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Herling SF, Moller AM, Palle C, Thomsen T (2016) Health-related quality of life after robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy for women with endometrial cancer--a prospective cohort study. Gynecol Oncol 140(1):107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sekse RJ, Hufthammer KO, Vika ME (2015) Fatigue and quality of life in women treated for various types of gynaecological cancers: a cross-sectional study. J Clin Nurs 24(3–4):546–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Davis MP, Goforth HW (2014) Long-term and short-term effects of insomnia in cancer and effective interventions. Cancer journal (Sudbury, Mass) 20(5):330–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Duijts SF, van Egmond MP, Spelten E, van Muijen P, Anema JR, van der Beek AJ (2014) Physical and psychosocial problems in cancer survivors beyond return to work: a systematic review. Psycho-oncology 23(5):481–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Paltrinieri S, Fugazzaro S, Bertozzi L, Bassi MC, Pellegrini M, Vicentini M, Mazzini E, Costi S (2018) Return to work in European Cancer survivors: a systematic review. Supportive care in cancer: official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer 26(9):2983–2994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    de Boer AG, Taskila T, Ojajarvi A, van Dijk FJ, Verbeek JH (2009) Cancer survivors and unemployment: a meta-analysis and meta-regression. Jama 301(7):753–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kiserud CE, Dahl AA, Loge JH, Fossa SD. Cancer survivorship in adults. Recent results in cancer research Fortschritte der Krebsforschung Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer. 2014;197:103–20Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fletcher C, Flight I, Chapman J, Fennell K, Wilson C (2017) The information needs of adult cancer survivors across the cancer continuum: a scoping review. Patient Educ Couns 100(3):383–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hewitt ME, Greenfield S, Stovall E (2006. xxv) From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition, vol 506. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Oftedal B, Kolltveit BH, Zoffmann V, Hornsten A, Graue M (2017) Learning to practise the guided self-determination approach in type 2 diabetes in primary care: a qualitative pilot study. Nursing open 4(3):134–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nutbeam D (1986) Health promotion glossary. Health promotion (Oxford, England) 1(1):113–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zoffmann V, Kirkevold M (2012) Realizing empowerment in difficult diabetes care: a guided self-determination intervention. Qual Health Res 22(1):103–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Finderup J, Bjerre T, Soendergaard A, Nielsen ME, Zoffmann V. Developing life skills in haemodialysis using the guided self-determination method: a qualitative study. Journal of renal care 2015Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Henshall CL, Greenfield SM, Gale NK. Typologies for restructuring relationships in cancer survivorship: temporal changes in social support and engagement with self-management practices. Cancer Nurs 2017Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Olesen ML, Hansen MK, Hansson H, Ottesen B, Andersen KK, Zoffmann V (2018) The distress thermometer in survivors of gynaecological cancer: accuracy in screening and association with the need for person-centred support. Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer 26(4):1143–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Manne SL, Virtue SM, Ozga M, Kashy D, Heckman C, Kissane D, Rosenblum N, Morgan M, Rodriquez L (2017) A comparison of two psychological interventions for newly-diagnosed gynecological cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol 144(2):354–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J (2007) Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International journal for quality in health care: journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care / ISQua 19(6):349–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Saltbaek L, Karlsen RV, Bidstrup PE, Hoeg BL, Zoffmann V, Horsbol TA, et al. (2019) MyHealth: specialist nurse-led follow-up in breast cancer. A randomized controlled trial - development and feasibility. Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden):1–8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RigshospitaletUniversity Hospital of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Unit of Cancer Rehabilitation, Clinic of Oncology, Department 9601Finsen CentreCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Department 7821Research Unit for Womens and Childrens HealthCopenhagenDenmark
  4. 4.Department of Public HealthUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  5. 5.Department of GynecologyCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations