A Q methodology study to investigate the experiences of head and neck cancer patients from diagnosis to 1 year

The quality of life of men one year after radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: The fine details of experience matter

INTRODUCTION

Radiographers and radiation therapists (RTT) meet cancer patients at the diagnosis, radiation treatment and late check-ups. This study aims to gain insight into men's experience concerning the quality of life one year after completing radiation therapy for head and neck cancer to contribute to radiographers' and RTT's understanding of patients' experiences during treatment.

METHODS

Six male head and neck cancer survivors were enrolled and interviewed one year after radiation therapy. Semi-structured interview transcriptions were coded to include statements about their experience of quality of life. Siri Næss' definition of quality of life is used as a theoretical framework.

RESULTS

This study generated four categories related to the personal experience concerned with the quality of life one year after radiotherapy treatment: Overwhelmed by information, Talking about mental well-being, Transitions - Cured but not healed, and The Fine Details to Quality of Life. There is a tendency that the patients do not express their emotions but express their assessments.

CONCLUSION

This study contributes to a nuanced understanding concerning the possibility of high quality of life despite many late effects among men with head and neck cancer. The informants are overwhelmed by information before and after the course of treatment. The fine details in quality of life have a significant influence on the everyday life of head and neck cancer survivors. The findings have implications for radiographers' and RTT's communication, which requires knowledge of the patient's overall course of treatment.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The study indicates that it is vital for informants to be seen. Radiographers and RTT's must know of the patients' course of treatment and apply this in the dialogue with the patients.

A scoping review of Q-methodology in healthcare research

BACKGROUND

Q-methodology is an approach to studying complex issues of human 'subjectivity'. Although this approach was developed in the early twentieth century, the value of Q-methodology in healthcare was not recognised until relatively recently. The aim of this review was to scope the empirical healthcare literature to examine the extent to which Q-methodology has been utilised in healthcare over time, including how it has been used and for what purposes.

METHODS

A search of three electronic databases (Scopus, EBSCO-CINAHL Complete, Medline) was conducted. No date restriction was applied. A title and abstract review, followed by a full-text review, was conducted by a team of five reviewers. Included articles were English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles that used Q-methodology (both Q-sorting and inverted factor analysis) in healthcare settings. The following data items were extracted into a purpose-designed Excel spreadsheet: study details (e.g., setting, country, year), reasons for using Q-methodology, healthcare topic area, participants (type and number), materials (e.g., ranking anchors and Q-set), methods (e.g., development of the Q-set, analysis), study results, and study implications. Data synthesis was descriptive in nature and involved frequency counting, open coding and the organisation by data items.

RESULTS

Of the 2,302 articles identified by the search, 289 studies were included in this review. We found evidence of increased use of Q-methodology in healthcare, particularly over the last 5 years. However, this research remains diffuse, spread across a large number of journals and topic areas. In a number of studies, we identified limitations in the reporting of methods, such as insufficient information on how authors derived their Q-set, what types of analyses they performed, and the amount of variance explained.

CONCLUSIONS

Although Q-methodology is increasingly being adopted in healthcare research, it still appears to be relatively novel. This review highlight commonalities in how the method has been used, areas of application, and the potential value of the approach. To facilitate reporting of Q-methodological studies, we present a checklist of details that should be included for publication.

A Qualitative Study Examining the Illness Narrative Master Plots of People with Head and Neck Cancer

Background: There is a need to understand the common plots (master plots) of illness narratives for people who are treated for cancer. Improved insight would enhance therapeutic relationships and help reduce stress for health care professionals (HCPs). Aim: Identify and refine the most supported narrative master plots, which convey meaning for the tellers' lived experience from diagnosis to a year post-treatment for a group of Head and Neck Cancer (H&NC) patients. Method: A purposive sample of individuals with H&NC using a single qualitative interview was undertaken. A narrative analysis was used. Results: Eighteen people (57.8 years, six female and 12 male) with H&NC participated. The average time since treatment began was 10 months. Five master plots were identified: (1) The responsive and reflective narrative, (2) The frail narrative, (3) The recovery narrative, (4) The survive or die narrative and (5) The personal project narrative. Discussion: The identification of narrative master plots of people with H&NC enables HCPs to understand and prepare for the different stories and reactions presented to them. This is important to prevent people's reactions being labelled in restrictive ways. The implications of recognising the different experiences are discussed further within the manuscript. Research is needed to build on these findings to promote better patient-centred care in practice.

Undergoing head and neck cancer surgery: A grounded theory

Surgery is the treatment of choice in most head and neck cancers. Very often, the surgery is radical with high impact on the psychosocial, functional and aesthetic fields. The aim of this study is to gain a deeper understanding of the patient's, clinician's and key informant's point of view when surgery is proposed, to improve the quality of pathways in terms of patients' practical, psychological and relational needs. We followed a Grounded Theory approach with semi-structured interviews. Seventeen participants (six patients, nine healthcare professionals and two volunteers) were interviewed immediately before surgery. The study generated a process of "persuading the patient of an obligation" as the core category. The other principal categories that emerged highlighted the patients' doubts and fears regarding the surgery consequences and, in parallel, strategies employed by the healthcare professionals to rebut hindering issues impeding surgery. In particular, healthcare professionals involved patients in an affiliation process through simplified communication to sustain the choice of surgery; the family plays a supportive role in this process. The interplay between the organisational process and patients' experience results in "I will let you convince me" at the end of the decision-making process, where the main aim was to save and be saved.