Cancer is ubiquitously bad, but that does not mean all cancers are equivalent. Methods of diagnosis, treatment options, and chance of survival vary not only from case to case, but from type to type, i.e. a diagnosis of early stage breast cancer, albeit traumatizing, is preferable to a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. It is no surprise then that information seeking behaviors would vary depending on cancer type, and indeed, that is what Rebekah Nagler and her fellow researchers found in their 2009 study.
The individuals involved in this study were breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer patients. All were diagnosed in 2005, lived in Philadelphia, and sought supplementary medical advice and information (p.S55). Both active information seeking and passive information scanning behaviors were examined. The purpose of the study was to assist clinicians in guiding their patients towards information sources that are both reliable and desirable (fulfilling the needs of both the doctor and patient). The methodology was sound, and the sample size large enough to produce significant results (breast N=678; prostate N=651; colorectal N=681). The data was collected via surveys which focused on three dimensions of information use, “topics addressed (e.g. treatment options, side effect management); sources used (e.g. medical, interpersonal, media); and amount of active seeking and passive scanning performed.” Multivariate linear regression (think trend-line) ruled out any significant relationship between variables other than cancer type and stage (p.S56).
The results indicated that “overall, breast and prostate cancer patients tended to seek information about cancer more frequently than colorectal cancer patients (85.1% and 90.3% versus 69.8%, respectively, p<.001)” (p.S57). Breast and prostate patients also “tended to come across information about their cancer more frequently than colorectal patients (86.5% and 79.2% versus 68.9%, respectively, p<.001). Across sources, breast cancer patients reported the greatest amount of scanning” (p.S58). Also, information seeking behaviors were contingent on disease stage, with earlier stage breast and prostate cancer patients being more likely to search for information than early stage colorectal patients, but later stage patients of all types showing less variation.
Nagler et.al propose a few explanations for the results. One is that there is more information available for early stage breast and prostate cancer patients, making it easier to search for and come across information (p.S60). Another explanation is that colorectal cancer treatment is rather straightforward, whereas the options available to breast and prostate cancer patients are varied, less clear-cut, and more controversial. A third explanation (none of these explanations being contradictory) is that treatment for colorectal cancer involves fewer side effects, providing less motivation and need for information seeking.
This study has some limitations, as pointed out by its creators (p.S62). It was regionally specific, having solicited participants only from the Philadelphia area, and possibly outdated due to rapidly changing technology. The researchers also did not collect data on which sources patients used to gain information about specific topics. The data were collected post-treatment, and are highly subjective. The seeking and scanning measures were also created for the purposes of this study and as a result, were not independently validated. Keeping these possible sources of error in mind however, the study still provides us with some insightful conclusions about the information seeking behaviors of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer patients.
The individuals involved in this study were breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer patients. All were diagnosed in 2005, lived in Philadelphia, and sought supplementary medical advice and information (p.S55). Both active information seeking and passive information scanning behaviors were examined. The purpose of the study was to assist clinicians in guiding their patients towards information sources that are both reliable and desirable (fulfilling the needs of both the doctor and patient). The methodology was sound, and the sample size large enough to produce significant results (breast N=678; prostate N=651; colorectal N=681). The data was collected via surveys which focused on three dimensions of information use, “topics addressed (e.g. treatment options, side effect management); sources used (e.g. medical, interpersonal, media); and amount of active seeking and passive scanning performed.” Multivariate linear regression (think trend-line) ruled out any significant relationship between variables other than cancer type and stage (p.S56).
The results indicated that “overall, breast and prostate cancer patients tended to seek information about cancer more frequently than colorectal cancer patients (85.1% and 90.3% versus 69.8%, respectively, p<.001)” (p.S57). Breast and prostate patients also “tended to come across information about their cancer more frequently than colorectal patients (86.5% and 79.2% versus 68.9%, respectively, p<.001). Across sources, breast cancer patients reported the greatest amount of scanning” (p.S58). Also, information seeking behaviors were contingent on disease stage, with earlier stage breast and prostate cancer patients being more likely to search for information than early stage colorectal patients, but later stage patients of all types showing less variation.
Nagler et.al propose a few explanations for the results. One is that there is more information available for early stage breast and prostate cancer patients, making it easier to search for and come across information (p.S60). Another explanation is that colorectal cancer treatment is rather straightforward, whereas the options available to breast and prostate cancer patients are varied, less clear-cut, and more controversial. A third explanation (none of these explanations being contradictory) is that treatment for colorectal cancer involves fewer side effects, providing less motivation and need for information seeking.
This study has some limitations, as pointed out by its creators (p.S62). It was regionally specific, having solicited participants only from the Philadelphia area, and possibly outdated due to rapidly changing technology. The researchers also did not collect data on which sources patients used to gain information about specific topics. The data were collected post-treatment, and are highly subjective. The seeking and scanning measures were also created for the purposes of this study and as a result, were not independently validated. Keeping these possible sources of error in mind however, the study still provides us with some insightful conclusions about the information seeking behaviors of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer patients.
No comments:
Post a Comment