Patient expectations of functional outcomes after rectal cancer surgery: A qualitative study

Diseases of the Colon and Rectum

Volumn 57, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 151-157

  Park, Jason ^a   Neuman, Heather B ^b   Bennett, Antonia V ^c   Polskin, Lily ^d   Phang, P Terry ^e   Wong, W Douglas ^d   Temple, Larissa K ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

^d MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Bowel function; Expectations; Qualitative research; Quality of life; Rectal cancer; Surgery

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURGERY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONFUSION (UNCERTAINTY); EXPECTATION; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; INTESTINE FUNCTION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OPEN ENDED QUESTIONNAIRE; ORGAN PRESERVATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT ATTITUDE; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RECTUM CANCER; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; SPHINCTER PRESERVING SURGERY; TELEPHONE INTERVIEW;

ADULT; AGED; ATTITUDE; COHORT STUDIES; DEFECATION; EMOTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF LIFE; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; RECTAL NEOPLASMS; THINKING; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 84893730109     PISSN: 00123706     EISSN: 15300358     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000036     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Ricciardi R, Virnig BA, Madoff RD, Rothenberger DA, Baxter NN. The status of radical proctectomy and sphincter-sparing surgery in the United States. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;50:1119-1127.
2. T ilney HS, Heriot AG, Purkayastha S, et al. A national perspective on the decline of abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2008;247:77-84.
3. T emple LK, Bacik J, Savatta SG, et al. The development of a validated instrument to evaluate bowel function after sphincter- preserving surgery for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48:1353-1365.
4. S hibata D, Guillem JG, Lanouette N, et al. Functional and quality- of-life outcomes in patients with rectal cancer after combined modality therapy, intraoperative radiation therapy, and sphincter preservation. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;43:752-758.
5. Williams N, Seow-Choen F. Physiological and functional outcome following ultra-low anterior resection with colon pouchanal anastomosis. Br J Surg. 1998;85:1029-1035.
6. Paty PB, Enker WE, Cohen AM, Minsky BD, Friedlander-Klar H. Long-term functional results of coloanal anastomosis for rectal cancer. Am J Surg. 1994;167:90-94.
7. E mmertsen KJ, Laurberg S. Low anterior resection syndrome score: Development and validation of a symptom-based scoring system for bowel dysfunction after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2012;255:922-928.
8. Park J, Fuzesi SJ, Duhamel KN, et al. Do patients expect changes in functional outcome following sphincter preserving surgery for rectal cancer? Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(suppl 1):110.
9. Carr AJ, Gibson B, Robinson PG. Measuring quality of life: Is quality of life determined by expectations or experience? BMJ. 2001;322:1240-1243.
10. Koller M, Lorenz W, Wagner K, et al. Expectations and quality of life of cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy. J R Soc Med. 2000;93:621-628.
11. T hompson AG, Suñol R. Expectations as determinants of patient satisfaction: Concepts, theory and evidence. Int J Qual Health Care. 1995;7:127-141.
12. Hoshmand LT . Alternate research paradigms: A review and teaching proposal. Couns Psychol. 1989;17:3-79.
13. S trauss AL, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1998.
14. Park J, Woodrow SI, Reznick RK, Beales J, MacRae HM. Patient care is a collective responsibility: Perceptions of professional responsibility in surgery. Surgery. 2007;142:111-118.
15. N euman HB, Park J, Fuzesi S, Temple LK. Rectal cancer patients' quality of life with a temporary stoma: Shifting perspectives. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55:1117-1124.
16. Creswell J. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1998.
17. Chapple A. Use of telephone interviewing for qualitative research. Nurs Res. 1999;6:85-93.
18. Carr EC, Worth A. Use of the telephone interview for research. J Res Nurs. 2001;6:511-524.
19. Carver CS, Scheier MF. Optimism. In: Leary MR, Hoyle RH, eds. Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior. New York, NY: Guilford; 2009:330-342.
20. Janzen JA, Silvius J, Jacobs S, Slaughter S, Dalziel W, Drummond N. What is a health expectation? Developing a pragmatic conceptual model from psychological theory. Health Expect. 2006;9:37-48.
21. O lson JM, Roese NJ, Zanna MP. Expectancies. In: Higgins ET, Kruglanski AW, eds. Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. New York, NY: Guilford; 1996:211-238.
22. Roese NJ, Sherman JW. Expectancy. In: Kruglanski AW, Higgins ET, eds. Social Pyschology: Handbook of Basic Principles. 2 ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2007:91-115.
23. N ewby-Clark IR, Ross M. Conceiving the past and future. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2003;29:807-818.
24. S tanley BM, Walters DJ, Maddern GJ. Informed consent: How much information is enough? Aust N Z J Surg. 1998;68:788-791.
25. S cheer AS, O'Connor AM, Chan BP, et al. The myth of informed consent in rectal cancer surgery: What do patients retain? Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55:970-975.
26. F ink AS, Prochazka AV, Henderson WG, et al. Predictors of comprehension during surgical informed consent. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210:919-926.
27. Berman L, Curry L, Gusberg R, Dardik A, Fraenkel L. Informed consent for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: The patient's perspective. J Vasc Surg. 2008;48:296-302.
28. S chenker Y, Fernandez A, Sudore R, Schillinger D. Interventions to improve patient comprehension in informed consent for medical and surgical procedures: A systematic review. Med Decis Making. 2011;31:151-173.
29. M ulsow JJ, Feeley TM, Tierney S. Beyond consent-improving understanding in surgical patients. Am J Surg. 2012;203:112-120.
30. N euman HB, Charlson ME, Temple LK. Is there a role for decision aids in cancer-related decisions? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2007;62:240-250.
31. M asya LM, Young JM, Solomon MJ, Harrison JD, Dennis RJ, Salkeld GP. Preferences for outcomes of treatment for rectal cancer: Patient and clinician utilities and their application in an interactive computer-based decision aid. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52:1994-2002.