Search

Purpose: A cancer diagnosis is an emotive and challenging time for patients. This study aimed to systematically explore patients' accounts of experiencing their cancer diagnosis. The purpose of this article is to offer a typology of patient responses to receiving a cancer diagnosis as a means through which to affirm the range of patients' experiences and to guide clinicians' practice.Methods: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted between 2015 and 2017 with 80 patients living with cancer: 34 females and 46 males, aged between 31 and 85, diagnosed with a range of cancer types, stages and treatment trajectories, from two metropolitan hospitals on the east coast of Australia. Interview data were analysed thematically, using the framework approach.Results: A typology of responses to the cancer diagnosis was derived from the analysis and included (1) the incongruent diagnosis, unexpected because it did not 'fit' with the patient's 'healthy' identity; (2) the incidental diagnosis, arising from seemingly unrelated or minor medical investigations; (3) the validating diagnosis, as explanation and confirmation of previously unexplained symptoms, pain or feelings; (4) the life context diagnosis, where the cancer diagnosis was positioned relative to other challenging life events, or as relatively inconsequential compared with the hardship of others.Conclusions: A diagnosis of cancer is not always (or only) experienced by patients with shock and despair. Diagnosis is perceived and experienced in diverse ways, shaped by broader social or life contexts, and with important implications for the clinical encounter and communication from an oncology perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic back pain affects a significant proportion of older women, often with severe implications for their social lives, relationships and families. It is often characterized by intractability and causative ambiguity, challenging a range of medical and moral boundaries around sickness and wellness. In this study, we utilize solicited diaries with women to capture the day-to-day undulations of living with chronic back pain. These diaries provide rich insight into issues around: disrupted roles and social lives; experiences of perpetuality and isolation; acts of pretense and withdrawal; and, its perceived illegitimacy as an illness experience. Situated within gendered and life-stage cultural scripts, these women’s diaries illustrate how ideas about legitimacy and worthiness circulate within and around the social milieu of chronic back pain. We posit that individualized shame and dynamics of recognition are central to women’s suffering, reflecting persistent and disruptive social hierarchies of illness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Back pain is an increasingly prevalent health concern amongst Australian women for which a wide range of treatment options are available, offered by biomedical, allied health and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers. Although there is an emerging literature on patterns of provider utilisation, less is known about the reasons why women with back pain select their chosen practitioner. In this paper we explore the influences on back pain sufferers' decision-making about treatment seeking with practitioners for their most recent episode of back pain. Methods Drawing on 50 semi-structured interviews with women aged 60-65 years from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH) who have chronic back pain, we focus on the factors which influence their choice of practitioner. Analysis followed a framework approach to qualitative content analysis, augmented by NVivo 9 qualitative data analysis software. Key themes were identified and tested for rigour through inter-rater reliability and constant comparison. Results The women identified four predominant influences on their choice of practitioner for back pain: familiarity with treatment or experiences with individual practitioners; recommendations from social networks; geographical proximity of practitioners; and, qualifications and credentials of practitioners. The therapeutic approach or evidence-base of the practices being utilised was not reported by the women as central to their back pain treatment decision making. Conclusions Choice of practitioner appears to be unrelated to the therapeutic approaches, treatment practices or the scientific basis of therapeutic practices. Moreover, anecdotal lay reports of effectiveness and the 'treatment experience' may be more influential than formal qualifications in guiding women's choice of practitioner for their back pain. Further work is needed on the interpersonal, collective and subjective underpinnings of practitioner choice, particularly over time, in order to better understand why women utilise certain practitioners for back pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Back pain impacts on a significant proportion of the Australian population over the life course and has high prevalence rates among women, particularly in older age. Back pain care is characterised by multiple practitioner and self-prescribed treatment options, and the out-of-pocket costs associated with consultations and self-prescribed treatments have not been examined to date. Objective: To analyse the extent of health care practitioner consultations and self-prescribed treatment for back pain care among Australian women, and to assess the self-reported costs associated with such usage. Methods: Survey of 1,310 women (response rate 80.9%) who reported seeking help for back pain from the ‘1946-51 cohort’ of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health. Women were asked about their use of health care practitioners and self-prescribed treatments for back pain and the costs associated with such usage. Results: In the past year 76.4% consulted a complementary and alternative practitioner, 56% an allied health practitioner and 59.2% a GP/medical specialist. Overall, women consulted with, on average, 3.0 (SD = 2.0) different health care practitioners, and had, on average, 12.2 (SD = 9.7) discrete health care practitioner consultations for back pain. Average self-reported out-of-pocket expenditure on practitioners and self-prescribed treatments for back pain care per annum was AU$873.10. Conclusions: Multiple provider usage for various but distinct purposes (i.e. pain/mobility versus anxiety/stress) points to the need for further research into patient motivations and experiences of back pain care in order to improve and enhance access to and continuity of care. Our results suggest that the cost of back pain care represents a significant burden, and may ultimately limit women’s access to multiple providers. We extrapolate that for Australian working-age women, total out-of-pocket expenditure on back pain care per annum is in excess of AU$1.4billion, thus indicating the prominence of back pain as a major economic, social and health burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Back pain is an increasingly prevalent health concern amongst Australian women for which a wide range of treatment options are available, offered by biomedical, allied health and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers. Although there is an emerging literature on patterns of provider utilisation, less is known about the reasons why women with back pain select their chosen practitioner. In this paper we explore the influences on back pain sufferers' decision-making about treatment seeking with practitioners for their most recent episode of back pain.Methods: Drawing on 50 semi-structured interviews with women aged 60-65 years from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH) who have chronic back pain, we focus on the factors which influence their choice of practitioner. Analysis followed a framework approach to qualitative content analysis, augmented by NVivo 9 qualitative data analysis software. Key themes were identified and tested for rigour through inter-rater reliability and constant comparison.Results: The women identified four predominant influences on their choice of practitioner for back pain: familiarity with treatment or experiences with individual practitioners; recommendations from social networks; geographical proximity of practitioners; and, qualifications and credentials of practitioners. The therapeutic approach or evidence-base of the practices being utilised was not reported by the women as central to their back pain treatment decision making.Conclusions: Choice of practitioner appears to be unrelated to the therapeutic approaches, treatment practices or the scientific basis of therapeutic practices. Moreover, anecdotal lay reports of effectiveness and the 'treatment experience' may be more influential than formal qualifications in guiding women's choice of practitioner for their back pain. Further work is needed on the interpersonal, collective and subjective underpinnings of practitioner choice, particularly over time, in order to better understand why women utilise certain practitioners for back pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]