Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T18:29:42.204Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A focus group consultation round exploring patient experiences of comfort during radiotherapy for head and neck cancer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2016

Simon D. Goldsworthy ,
Kelly Tuke  and
Jos M. Latour
Simon D. Goldsworthy*
Affiliation:
Radiotherapy, Beacon Cancer Centre, Taunton, Somerset, Taunton, SomersetUK
Kelly Tuke
Affiliation:
Radiotherapy, Beacon Cancer Centre, Taunton, Somerset, Taunton, SomersetUK
Jos M. Latour
Affiliation:
Radiotherapy, Beacon Cancer Centre, Taunton, Somerset, Taunton, SomersetUK
*
Correspondence to: Simon D Goldsworthy, Radiotherapy, Beacon Cancer Centre, Taunton, Somerset Taunton, Somerset, TA1 5DA UK. Tel: 01823 344250; E-mail: simon.goldsworthy@tst.nhs.uk, simon.goldsworthy@googlemail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to consult patients about their experiences of comfort while wearing a thermoplastic mask during head and neck radiotherapy before designing a study to develop a comfort scale for radiotherapy.

Methods

A qualitative method using a focus group of patients receiving radiotherapy for head and neck cancer was deployed. Five patients were invited and agreed to participate. Semi-structured questions guided the focus group interview. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes.

Findings

Three patients participated in the focus group. Three main themes were identified: Physical comfort, Mental perception, Passivity. Physical comfort derived from feelings of pressure, unpleasantness, and generally being uncomfortable. Mental perception derived from how the physical comfort was perceived and derived from feelings of shock, anxiety, indifference and sensory systems. Passivity arose from feelings such as the ‘doctor knows best’, ‘putting up with it’, and ‘being taken for a ride’.

Conclusion

The insight of patient’s comfort and experiences are valuable for clinicians to provide patient-centred care. Findings of this study implicate further investigation of how the themes of patient comfort can be measured in radiotherapy to improve the patient experience.

Keywords

patient comfortpatient experiencespatient perceptionsperspex maskradiotherapythermoplastic mask
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 143 - 149
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.The Royal College of Radiologists, Society and College of Radiographers, Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine. On Target: Ensuring Geometric Accuracy in Radiotherapy. London, UK: The Royal College of Radiologists, 2008: 11–14.Google Scholar
2.Boda-Heggeman, J, Walter, C, Rahn, A, et al. Repositioning accuracy of two different mask systems – 3D revisited: comparison using true 3D/3D matching with cone-beam CT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 66: 1568–1575.Google Scholar
3.Dobbs, J, Barratt, A, Morris, S, Roques, T. Practical Radiotherapy Planning, 4th edition. UK: Hodder Arnold, 2009.Google Scholar
4.Leitzen, C, Wilhelm-Buchstab, T, Garbe, Set al. Quality of patient positioning during cerebral tomotherapy irradiation using different mask systems. Strahlenther Onkol 2014; 190: 382–385.Google Scholar
5.Dahele, M, Verbakel, W, Cuijpers, J, Slotman, B, Senan, S. An analysis of patient positioning during stereotactic lung radiotherapy performed without rigid external immobilization. Radiother Oncol 2012; 104: 28–32.Google Scholar
6.Mullaney, L M, O’Shea, E, Dunne, M Tet al. A randomized trial comparing bladder volume consistency during fractionated prostate radiation therapy. Pract Radiat Oncol 2014; 4: e203–e212.Google Scholar
7.Cheng, F, Wang, W. Factors influencing comfort level in head and neck neoplasm patients receiving radiotherapy. Int J Nur Scie 2014; 1: 394–399.Google Scholar
8.Kolcaba, K, Tilton, C, Drouin, C. Comfort theory: a unifying framework to enhance the practice environment. J Nurs Adm 2006; 36: 538–544.Google Scholar
9.Kolcaba, K, Steiner, R. Empirical evidence for the nature of holistic comfort. J Holist Nurs 2000; 18: 46–62.Google Scholar
10.Pineau, C. The Psychological Meaning of Comfort. International Review of Applied Psychology, Volume 31. Paris, France: SAGE, 1982: 271–283.Google Scholar
11.Bartlett, F R, Colgan, R M, Carr, Ket al. The UK HeartSpare Study: randomised evaluation of voluntary deep-inspiratory breath-hold in women undergoing breast radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2013; 108: 242–247.Google Scholar
12.Nutting, C M, Khoo, V S, Walker, Vet al. A randomized study of the use of a customized immobilization system in the treatment of prostate cancer with conformal radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2000; 54: 1–9.Google Scholar
13.Cox, J, Davison, A. Comfort as a determiner of treatment position in radiotherapy of the male pelvis. Radiography 2005; 11: 109–115.Google Scholar
14.Maclsaac, S C, Doucette, J. Patient assessment. In: Washington C M, Leaver D (eds) Principles and Practice of Radiation Therapy, 4th edition. USA: Elsevier Mosby, 2015: 219--239.Google Scholar
15.Braun, V, Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitat Res Psychol 2006; 3: 77–101.Google Scholar
16.Kruger, R, Casey, M. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 3rd edition. USA: Sage Publications, 2000.Google Scholar
17.Krueger, R A. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2000.Google Scholar
18.Creswell, J W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches, 3rd edition. CA: SAGE, 2009.Google Scholar
19.Flinton, D D, Owens, A. Sampling Errors, Bias and Objectivity in Ramlaul. A Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy Research, Skills and Strategies. UK: Churchill Livingstone, 2010.Google Scholar
20.Rubin, H, Rubin, I. Qualitative Interviewing, 3rd edition. USA: Sage, 2012.Google Scholar
21.Kidd, P, Parshall, M. Getting the focus and the group: enhancing analytical rigor in focus group research. Qualitative Health Research 2000; 10: 293–308.Google Scholar
22.Williams, P, Wilford, B, Cutler, S, Qualitative analysis in Ramlaul. A Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy Research, Skills and Strategies. UK: Churchill Livingstone, 2010.Google Scholar
23.Medical Research Council. Good Research Practice; Principles and Guidelines. UK: Medical Research Council, 2012.Google Scholar
24.Onwuegbuzie, A J, Dickinson, W B, Leech, N L, Zoran, A G. A qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research. Int J Qual Meth 2009; 8: 1–21.Google Scholar
25.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Patient and public involvement in health and social care research: a handbook for researchers www.rds.nihr.ac.uk/wp…/RDS-PPIHandbook-2014-v8-FINAL.pdf. Accessed on 20th November 2015.Google Scholar
26.Arino, C, Stadelmaier, N, Dupin, C, Kantor, G, Henriques de Figueiredo, B. Thermoplastic mask in radiotherapy: a source of anxiety for the patient? Cancer Radiother 2014; 18: 753–756.Google Scholar
27.van der Steen, J T, Sampson, E L, Van den Block, Let al. Tools to assess pain or lack of comfort in dementia: a content analysis. J Pain Symptom Manage 2015; 50: 659–675.Google Scholar
28.Bayley, A J, Catton, C N, Haycocks, Tet al. Randomized trial of supine vs. prone positioning in patients undergoing escalated dose conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2004; 70: 37–44.Google Scholar
29.Appleton, L, Wyatt, D, Perkins, Eet al. The impact of prostate cancer on men’s everyday life. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2015; 24: 71–84.Google Scholar