Seeking and Managing Hope: Patients' Experiences Using the Internet for Cancer Care

Dickerson, Suzanne S.; Boehmke, Marcia; Ogle, Carolann; Brown, Jean K.

doi:10.1188/06.onf.e8-e17

Cited by 59 publications

(95 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Three studies were descriptive only, and all three of these were reported alongside quantitative research. [99][100][101] Four studies reported taking a phenomenological approach, 113,114,117,134,135 two used ethnography, [124][125][126]215 two used discourse analysis 208,218 and two used grounded theory, 115,118,119 including one that used participatory research. 118,119 Sample size…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…100,103,110,116,134 An additional four studies were identified through reference checks and efforts to locate published literature linked to unpublished work identified through the electronic search. 111,112,135,136 An additional two papers (women only), although individually ineligible, were located as 'linked papers' for two of the original 34 studies, 114,120 giving a total of 38 studies (reported in 44 papers), as shown in Figure 8.…”

Section: Search Outcomementioning

confidence: 99%

“…[118][119][120][121][124][125][126] An additional two papers that did not meet the eligibility criteria as they had female-only samples are included in the synthesis because they presented data about women that formed the basis of gender comparisons made by the authors of included studies reporting findings from male participants. 114,122 The details of all included studies are presented in Table 36 and provide the context for the interpretations of each study.…”

Section: General Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of the studies were conducted in the USA (n = 13 studies) 101,110,113,114,123,[128][129][130]136,208,213,217 and the UK (n = 11), 99,100,102,108,112,115,116,128,209,214,216 with the remainder in Australia (n = 5), 109,111,118,210,212 Canada (n = 5) 107,117,120,125,211 and the following: Denmark, 207 France, 218 South Africa 215 and Sweden…”

Section: Countrymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…100,102,103,107,113,115,122,128,136,212,216,218 Two of the mixed-sex studies reported separate male-only and female-only data. 113,114,[120][121][122] Two of the 26 male-only studies involved participant observation of mixed-sex groups, but did not report the number of female participants because the focus of the study was men. 112,215 The number of males and females in the sample was reported for all of the mixed-sex sample studies except one.…”

Section: Sexmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A systematic review and metaethnography to identify how effective, cost-effective, accessible and acceptable self-management support interventions are for men with long-term conditions (SELF-MAN)

Galdas

Darwin

Fell

et al. 2015

Health Serv Deliv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health Services and Delivery ResearchISSN 2050-4349 (Print) ISSN 2050-4357 (Online) This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full HS&DR archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hsdr. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Services and Delivery Research journalReports are published in Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HS&DR programme or programmes which preceded the HS&DR programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors. HS&DR programmeThe Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was established to fund a broad range of research. It combines the strengths and contributions of two previous NIHR research programmes: the Health Services Research (HSR) programme and the Service Delivery and Organisation (SDO) programme, which were merged in January 2012.The HS&DR programme aims to produce rigorous and relevant evidence on the quality, access and organisation of health services including costs and outcomes, as well as research on implementation. The programme will enhance the strategic focus on research that matters to the NHS and is keen to support ambitious evaluative research to improve health services.For more information about the HS&DR programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hsdr This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HS&DR programme or one of its preceding programmes as project number 12/5001/14. The contractual start date was in June 2013. The final report began editorial review in June 2014 and was accepted for publication in December 2014. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HS&DR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HS&DR programme or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed by the interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors, those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HS&DR programme or the Department of Health....

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Search Outcomementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: General Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Countrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sexmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A systematic review and metaethnography to identify how effective, cost-effective, accessible and acceptable self-management support interventions are for men with long-term conditions (SELF-MAN)

Galdas

Darwin

Fell

et al. 2015

Health Serv Deliv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Information seeking and avoidance throughout the cancer patient journey: two sides of the same coin? A synthesis of qualitative studies

Germeni

Schulz

2014

Psycho-Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Empowerment in cancer patients: Does peer support make a difference? A systematic review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Empowerment is critical for cancer patients to make informed choices, to manage medication, and to navigate through the oncological care system. Cancer peer support provides patients with information, emotional relief and may promote empowerment. This paper provides a systematic review of the literature examining the impact of cancer peer support interventions on psychological empowerment. Methods PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO and PSYNDEX databases were systematically searched from inception until December 2020. We included quantitative studies, published in English or German, which examined peer‐led cancer support interventions and their impact on the three components of psychological empowerment (intrapersonal, interactional and behavioural) among participating cancer patients. Results Database searches and screening of relevant reference lists identified 2336 potentially relevant articles. A total of 29 studies were included in the review. Active coping, self‐efficacy and knowledge were the most prominent dimensions of empowerment in these studies. The majority of studies revealed that peer support led to a small to medium, significant increase in psychological empowerment, and was associated with further patient‐reported benefits. Conclusions The existing evidence suggests a weak to moderate, positive association between cancer peer support and the three components of psychological empowerment among cancer patients. Peer support groups should be seen as an important element in cancer care and clinical practice and, thus, be more systematically involved in cancer care.

show abstract

Seeking and Managing Hope: Patients' Experiences Using the Internet for Cancer Care

Abstract: Computer-savvy patients and their personal support networks will avail themselves of Internet information, creating the need for new interaction patterns and relationships with providers.

Cited by 59 publications

References 22 publications

A systematic review and metaethnography to identify how effective, cost-effective, accessible and acceptable self-management support interventions are for men with long-term conditions (SELF-MAN)

A systematic review and metaethnography to identify how effective, cost-effective, accessible and acceptable self-management support interventions are for men with long-term conditions (SELF-MAN)

Information seeking and avoidance throughout the cancer patient journey: two sides of the same coin? A synthesis of qualitative studies

Empowerment in cancer patients: Does peer support make a difference? A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About