Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 6/2009

01-06-2009 | Supportive Care International

Symptom-monitoring behaviors of rural cancer patients and survivors

Author: Carol J. Hermansen-Kobulnicky

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 6/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Goals of work

Symptom monitoring is described among rural cancer patients and survivors with comparison across study variables.

Materials and methods

An anonymous survey was mailed to adult cancer patients and survivors. Sampling was via a cancer center serving a region of a US rural-frontier state. Symptom monitoring was measured as keeping written track of symptoms, side effects, trends in how one is feeling, and/or limits to what one can do.

Main results

Useable response rate was 60.4% (134/222). Respondents were on average 62.3 years old, 53.0% were female, and 52.3% had earned less than a college degree. Breast (30.6%) and prostate (28.4%) cancers were most common. Symptom monitoring was reported and confirmed via tracking means, by 32.1% of respondents. Symptom monitoring was associated with “shared” or “passive” symptom management decisions, keeping written track of questions to ask providers and answers received, report of fatigue, and having received the suggestion or advice on how to monitor. Symptom monitoring was not associated with age, education, sex, number of symptoms, or being given something with which to monitor.

Conclusions

Symptom monitoring apart from intervention appears common among rural cancer patients and survivors. Findings support using multi-dimensional ways to inquire of, and refer to, such behavior. Data show symptom monitoring is more common among those suffering cancer-related fatigue, indicating opportunities for intervention to optimize monitoring for improved outcomes. Findings also suggest symptom-monitoring patients may rely on, or interact more with, providers regarding symptom management.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
3.
go back to reference Basch E, Artz D, Iasonos A, Speakman J, Shannon K et al (2007) Evaluation of an online platform for cancer patient self-reporting of chemotherapy toxicities. J Am Med Inform Assoc 14:264–268 doi:10.1197/jamia.M2177 PubMedCrossRef Basch E, Artz D, Iasonos A, Speakman J, Shannon K et al (2007) Evaluation of an online platform for cancer patient self-reporting of chemotherapy toxicities. J Am Med Inform Assoc 14:264–268 doi:10.​1197/​jamia.​M2177 PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Bilodeau BA, Degner LF (1996) Information needs, sources of information, and decisional roles in women with breast cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum 23:691–696PubMed Bilodeau BA, Degner LF (1996) Information needs, sources of information, and decisional roles in women with breast cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum 23:691–696PubMed
7.
go back to reference Cassileth BR, Zupkis RV, Sutton-Smith K, March V (1980) Information and participation preferences among cancer patients. Ann Intern Med 92:832–836PubMed Cassileth BR, Zupkis RV, Sutton-Smith K, March V (1980) Information and participation preferences among cancer patients. Ann Intern Med 92:832–836PubMed
10.
go back to reference Desch CE, Smith TJ, Breindel CL (1992) Cancer treatment in rural areas. Hosp Health Serv Adm 37:449–463PubMed Desch CE, Smith TJ, Breindel CL (1992) Cancer treatment in rural areas. Hosp Health Serv Adm 37:449–463PubMed
11.
go back to reference Dillman DA (1999) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, vol. 2. Wiley, New York Dillman DA (1999) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, vol. 2. Wiley, New York
16.
17.
go back to reference Harris KA (1998) The informational needs of patients with cancer and their families. Cancer Prac 6(1):39–46CrossRef Harris KA (1998) The informational needs of patients with cancer and their families. Cancer Prac 6(1):39–46CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Thun MJ (2007) Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin 57:43–66PubMedCrossRef Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Thun MJ (2007) Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin 57:43–66PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Johnson JE, Fieler VK, Jones LS, Wlasowicz GS, Mitchell ML (1997) Self-regulation theory: applying theory to your practice. Oncology Nursing Press, Pittsburgh, PA Johnson JE, Fieler VK, Jones LS, Wlasowicz GS, Mitchell ML (1997) Self-regulation theory: applying theory to your practice. Oncology Nursing Press, Pittsburgh, PA
26.
28.
go back to reference Kroenke K, Spitzer RL (1998) Gender differences in the reporting of physical and somatoform symptoms. Psychosom Med 60:150–155PubMed Kroenke K, Spitzer RL (1998) Gender differences in the reporting of physical and somatoform symptoms. Psychosom Med 60:150–155PubMed
29.
go back to reference Leventhal H, Leventhal E, Schaefer P (1991) Vigilant coping and health behavior. In: Ory M, Abeles R (eds) Aging, health, and behavior. Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, pp 109–140 Leventhal H, Leventhal E, Schaefer P (1991) Vigilant coping and health behavior. In: Ory M, Abeles R (eds) Aging, health, and behavior. Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, pp 109–140
30.
go back to reference Leventhal H, Nerenz DR, Straus A (1980) Self-regulation and the mechanisms for symptom appraisal. In: Mechanic D (ed) Psychosocial epidemiology 3: symptoms, illness behavior, and help-seeking. Neale Watson, New York, pp 55–86 Leventhal H, Nerenz DR, Straus A (1980) Self-regulation and the mechanisms for symptom appraisal. In: Mechanic D (ed) Psychosocial epidemiology 3: symptoms, illness behavior, and help-seeking. Neale Watson, New York, pp 55–86
31.
go back to reference Madan A, Borckardt J, Weinstein B, Wagner M, Dominick C et al (2008) Clinical outcomes assessment in behavioral healthcare: searching for practical solutions. J Healthc Qual 30(4):30–37PubMed Madan A, Borckardt J, Weinstein B, Wagner M, Dominick C et al (2008) Clinical outcomes assessment in behavioral healthcare: searching for practical solutions. J Healthc Qual 30(4):30–37PubMed
33.
go back to reference Mullin SM, Fletcher DM, Tyler LS (1998) Mail-in questionnaire for monitoring nausea and vomiting in oncology outpatients. Am J Health Syst Pharm 55:1903–1906PubMed Mullin SM, Fletcher DM, Tyler LS (1998) Mail-in questionnaire for monitoring nausea and vomiting in oncology outpatients. Am J Health Syst Pharm 55:1903–1906PubMed
36.
go back to reference Rowland D, Lyons B (1989) Triple jeopardy: rural, poor and uninsured. Health Serv Res 23:975–1004PubMed Rowland D, Lyons B (1989) Triple jeopardy: rural, poor and uninsured. Health Serv Res 23:975–1004PubMed
40.
go back to reference Spirig R, Moody K, Battegay M, De Geest S (2005) Symptom management in HIV/AIDS: advancing the conceptualization. ANS Adv Nurs Sci 28(4):333–344PubMed Spirig R, Moody K, Battegay M, De Geest S (2005) Symptom management in HIV/AIDS: advancing the conceptualization. ANS Adv Nurs Sci 28(4):333–344PubMed
41.
go back to reference Tucci RA, Bartels KL (1998) Patient use of the symptom reporting tool. Clin J Oncol Nurs 2(3):97–99PubMed Tucci RA, Bartels KL (1998) Patient use of the symptom reporting tool. Clin J Oncol Nurs 2(3):97–99PubMed
45.
go back to reference Weinert C, Burman ME (1994) Rural health and health-seeking behaviors. Annu Rev Nurs Res 12:65–92PubMed Weinert C, Burman ME (1994) Rural health and health-seeking behaviors. Annu Rev Nurs Res 12:65–92PubMed
Metadata
Title
Symptom-monitoring behaviors of rural cancer patients and survivors
Author
Carol J. Hermansen-Kobulnicky
Publication date
01-06-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 6/2009
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-008-0552-8

Other articles of this Issue 6/2009

Supportive Care in Cancer 6/2009 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine