IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v19y2010i13-14p2023-2031.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Treatment decision‐making in cancer care: the role of the carer

Author

Listed:
  • Gill Hubbard
  • Nicola Illingworth
  • Neneh Rowa‐Dewar
  • Liz Forbat
  • Nora Kearney

Abstract

Aims and objectives. This study explores the role of the carer in treatment decision‐making in cancer care. Background. Literature about involvement in treatment decision‐making tends to focus on patients and clinicians, with the carer rarely included. The absence of carers is problematic because the management of illness is often carried out in the context of complex networks of relationships. Although current policy encourages health care practitioners to work in partnership with family members, implementation is troubled by a lack of understanding of the significance of interpersonal relationships and interactions and the role of the relationship throughout the course of the illness experience. Despite awareness, there is little systematic, coherent analysis of the complexity of these interactional dynamics and, in particular, consideration of the implications for involvement and treatment decision‐making. Design. Qualitative, longitudinal. Methods. Three serial semi‐structured interviews with 66 patients and 43 carers within the first year following a diagnosis of cancer. A descriptive and thematic approach to data analysis was adopted. Results. Carers are involved in treatment decision‐making in cancer care and contribute to the involvement of patients through their actions during, before and after consultations with clinicians. Carers can act as conduits for information from patient to clinician and from clinician to patient. They can also act as facilitators during deliberations, helping patients to consider whether to have treatment or not and which treatment. Conclusions. Our study has highlighted the deficiency of models that fail to acknowledge the role of the carer in the treatment decision‐making process. We propose the adoption of a relational approach by the inclusion of the carer in conceptual frameworks and recommend triadic (patient, carer and professional) models of involvement. Relevance to clinical practice. Cancer care clinicians should recognise and actively involve the carer as well as the patient in treatment decision‐making.

Suggested Citation

  • Gill Hubbard & Nicola Illingworth & Neneh Rowa‐Dewar & Liz Forbat & Nora Kearney, 2010. "Treatment decision‐making in cancer care: the role of the carer," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(13‐14), pages 2023-2031, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:19:y:2010:i:13-14:p:2023-2031
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03062.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03062.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03062.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Entwistle, Vikki & Prior, Maria & Skea, Zoe C. & Francis, Jillian J., 2008. "Involvement in treatment decision-making: Its meaning to people with diabetes and implications for conceptualisation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 362-375, January.
    2. Thompson, Andrew G.H., 2007. "The meaning of patient involvement and participation in health care consultations: A taxonomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(6), pages 1297-1310, March.
    3. Sullivan, Mark, 2003. "The new subjective medicine: taking the patient's point of view on health care and health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(7), pages 1595-1604, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Miller, Nancy & Weinstein, Marcie, 2007. "Participation and knowledge related to a nursing home admission decision among a working age population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 303-313, January.
    2. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    3. Lee, Yin-Yang & Lin, Julia L., 2010. "Do patient autonomy preferences matter? Linking patient-centered care to patient-physician relationships and health outcomes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(10), pages 1811-1818, November.
    4. Natasa Sedlar & Mitja Lainscak & Jerneja Farkas, 2020. "Living with Chronic Heart Failure: Exploring Patient, Informal Caregiver, and Healthcare Professional Perceptions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-16, April.
    5. Murali Sundaram & Jan Kavookjian & Julie Patrick, 2009. "Health-Related Quality of Life and Quality of Life in Type 2 Diabetes," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(2), pages 121-133, June.
    6. Eissens van der Laan, M.R. & van Offenbeek, M.A.G. & Broekhuis, H. & Slaets, J.P.J., 2014. "A person-centred segmentation study in elderly care: Towards efficient demand-driven care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 68-76.
    7. Cho, Sun Mi & Park, Chan-ung & Song, Min, 2020. "The evolution of social health research topics: A data-driven analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    8. Lopes, Edilene & Carter, Drew & Street, Jackie, 2015. "Power relations and contrasting conceptions of evidence in patient-involvement processes used to inform health funding decisions in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 84-91.
    9. Peña-Longobardo, L.M. & Rodríguez-Sánchez, B. & Oliva-Moreno, J., 2021. "The impact of widowhood on wellbeing, health, and care use: A longitudinal analysis across Europe," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    10. Stacey, Clare Louise & Henderson, Stuart & MacArthur, Kelly R. & Dohan, Daniel, 2009. "Demanding patient or demanding encounter?: A case study of a cancer clinic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 729-737, September.
    11. Mendick, Nicola & Young, Bridget & Holcombe, Christopher & Salmon, Peter, 2010. "The ethics of responsibility and ownership in decision-making about treatment for breast cancer: Triangulation of consultation with patient and surgeon perspectives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1904-1911, June.
    12. Finn, Mark & Sarangi, Srikant, 2008. "Quality of life as a mode of governance: NGO talk of HIV 'positive' health in India," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(7), pages 1568-1578, April.
    13. Lauren McCormack & Pamela Williams-Piehota & Carla Bann, 2009. "Behind Closed Doors: What Happens when Patients and Providers Talk about Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(3), pages 191-201, September.
    14. Tone Andersen‐Hollekim & Marit Solbjør & Marit Kvangarsnes & Torstein Hole & Bodil J. Landstad, 2020. "Narratives of patient participation in haemodialysis," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(13-14), pages 2293-2305, July.
    15. Lucas, Henry, 2015. "New technology and illness self-management: Potential relevance for resource-poor populations in Asia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 145-153.
    16. Gisquet, Elsa, 2008. "Cerebral implants and Parkinson's disease: A unique form of biographical disruption?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 1847-1851, December.
    17. Daniela R. Bien & Marion Danner & Vera Vennedey & Daniele Civello & Silvia M. Evers & Mickaël Hiligsmann, 2017. "Patients’ Preferences for Outcome, Process and Cost Attributes in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(5), pages 553-565, October.
    18. Fernández, Andrés & Oviedo, Enrique, 2010. "Information and communication technologies in the health sector: opportunities and challenges for the reduction of inequalities in Latin America and the Caribbean," Políticas Sociales 6178, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    19. Lehoux, Pascale & Poland, Blake & Daudelin, Genevieve, 2006. "Focus group research and "the patient's view"," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(8), pages 2091-2104, October.
    20. Juan Oliva-Moreno & Julio López-Bastida & Pedro Serrano-Aguilar & Lilisbeth Perestelo-Pérez, 2010. "Determinants of health care costs of HIV-positive patients in the Canary Islands, Spain," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(4), pages 405-412, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:19:y:2010:i:13-14:p:2023-2031. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.