Cited by 36Cancer survivorship and careParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFamily Support in Illness

Using photography to explore psychological distress in patients with pancreatic cancer and their caregivers: a qualitative study

Open access
Wong, Shan S., George, Thomas J., Godfrey, Melyssa, Le, Jennifer, Pereira, Deidre B.·2019·Supportive Care in Cancer

Abstract

Purpose The quality of life (QOL) experiences of patients with pancreatic cancer and their caregivers is poorly understood. Psychological distress is high, but few studies examine the factors associated with psychological distress. The purpose of this study is to gain a richer understanding of the factors associated with psychological distress from patient and caregiver perspectives. Methods Twenty participants (13 patients, 7 caregivers) completed group discussions on the experiences of living with pancreatic cancer. Using photovoice methods, participants took photographs and provided narratives depicting the distress they experienced. Participant-produced photographs and group discussion transcripts were analyzed to identify key themes using thematic analysis. Results Commonalities between patient and caregiver sources of distress emerged despite their distinct roles. Findings revealed four major areas of distress: diagnosis of an unexpected advanced cancer, changes in roles and identity, management of weight loss and gastrointestinal problems, and fear of the future. Participants also discussed unique perspectives such as the stigma of pancreatic cancer and caregiver guilt. Conclusions Photovoice provides a unique insight into the lives of patients with pancreatic cancer and their caregivers. Our findings contribute to the gap in the current literature by providing a better understanding of the factors surrounding pancreatic cancer distress. We also identify several clinical recommendations to improve cancer care delivery and areas for future research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00520-018-4330-y

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Eight included studies were cross-sectional studies and one study was a prospective cohort design.

    “Eight studies were cross-sectional studies [5, 27–33]. One study was a prospective cohort design [6].”

    From Systematic review of caregiver burden, unmet needs and quality-of-life among informal caregivers of patients with pancreatic cancer (2023) · cites this paper as [28]

    The citation to this paper is attached to the claim that one study used a prospective cohort design, not to the count of eight cross-sectional studies. The Introduction describes this as a Photovoice study of lived experiences, and Methods > Data analysis describes thematic analysis of group discussions rather than a prospective cohort design (page unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • From a maximum of 22 points, three qualitative studies scored 17 points and two scored 18 points.

    “From a maximum of 22 points, three studies scored 17 points [27–30] and two studies scored 18 points [31].”

    From Systematic review of caregiver burden, unmet needs and quality-of-life among informal caregivers of patients with pancreatic cancer (2023) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Methods (Data analysis; page unavailable) and Results (page unavailable) establish that Wong et al. conducted a qualitative study. Our copy does not report a 22-point appraisal or a score of 17 or 18; searches for those scores and quality assessment found no matching passage. The citation can identify a study being assessed, but the score cannot be verified from this source. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Five included studies were conducted in the USA, three in Australia, and one in Denmark.

    “Five studies (three qualitative, two quantitative) were conducted in the USA [5, 28, 29, 31, 33], three (two qualitative, one quantitative) in Australia [27, 30, 32] and one quantitative study in Denmark [6].”

    From Systematic review of caregiver burden, unmet needs and quality-of-life among informal caregivers of patients with pancreatic cancer (2023) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Methods (Study procedures and Data analysis) describe this paper as a qualitative study conducted at an academic teaching hospital. Our copy does not identify the hospital’s country or enumerate the other studies, so it cannot verify the USA designation or the five–three–one country totals. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Informal caregivers were predominantly spouses to patients with pancreatic cancer (98.6%, 6058/6142).

    “Informal caregivers were predominantly spouses to patients with pancreatic cancer (98.6%, 6058/6142) [5, 6, 28, 33, 34].”

    From Systematic review of caregiver burden, unmet needs and quality-of-life among informal caregivers of patients with pancreatic cancer (2023) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Results section reports that patient-identified caregivers were primarily spouses or partners (85.7%), supporting the predominance of spousal caregivers in this study. It does not support the cited sentence’s 98.6% figure or its count of 6,058 out of 6,142; this study had seven caregivers who completed it. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Digestive symptoms (loss of appetite, weight loss, nausea, and constipation) and side effects of treatment were sources of informal caregivers' distress.

    “Digestive symptoms (for example, loss of appetite [28, 30], weight loss [30], nausea [28], and constipation [28]) and side effects of treatment [28] were the sources of informal caregivers’ distress.”

    From Systematic review of caregiver burden, unmet needs and quality-of-life among informal caregivers of patients with pancreatic cancer (2023) · cites this paper as [28]

    In Results, under “Management of weight loss and GI symptoms” (page unavailable), a caregiver describes frustration about the patient’s nausea, difficulty using the bathroom and inability to eat normally, alongside helplessness about treatment or disease side effects. The Discussion also identifies weight loss as a source of distress, but says patients in this study reported a strong appetite. The source therefore supports the overall point about caregiver distress, but not the specific example of loss of appetite. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. [3]Tempero MA Malafa MP Al-Hawary M Asbun H Bain A Behrman SW Benson AB 3rd Binder E Cardin DB Cha C Chiorean EG Chung V Czito B Dillhoff M Dotan E Ferrone CR Hardacre J Hawkins WG Herman J Ko AH Komanduri S Koong A LoConte N Lowy AM Moravek C Nakakura EK O'Reilly EM Obando J Reddy S Scaife C Thayer S Weekes CD Wolff RA Wolpin BM Burns J Darlow S 2017 Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network: JNCCN 15 8 1028 1061 10.6004/jnccn.2017.0131 28784865 · DOI
  2. [4]Bauer MR Bright EE MacDonald JJ Cleary EH Hines OJ Stanton AL 2018 Quality of Life in Patients With Pancreatic Cancer and Their Caregivers: A Systematic Review Pancreas 47 4 368 375 10.1097/mpa.0000000000001025 29521939 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [5]Tang CC Von Ah D Fulton JS 2018 The Symptom Experience of Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: An Integrative Review Cancer nursing 41 1 33 44 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000463 28059839 · DOI
  4. [6]Jia L Jiang SM Shang YY Huang YX Li YJ Xie DR Huang KH Zhi FC 2010 Investigation of the incidence of pancreatic cancer-related depression and its relationship with the quality of life of patients Digestion 82 1 4 9 10.1159/000253864 20145402 · DOI
  5. [7]Sherman DW McGuire DB Free D Cheon JY 2014 A pilot study of the experience of family caregivers of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer using a mixed methods approach J Pain Symptom Manage 48 3 385 399 e381 382 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.09.006 24291294 · DOI · Paper page
  6. [8]Boyd AD Brown D Henrickson C Hampton J Zhu B Almani F Ben-Josef E Zalupski M Simeone DM Taylor JM Armitage R Riba M 2012 Screening for depression, sleep-related disturbances, and anxiety in patients with adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: a preliminary study ScientificWorldJournal 2012 650707 10.1100/2012/650707 22666142 PMC3366237 · DOI
  7. [9]Janda M Neale RE Klein K O'Connell DL Gooden H Goldstein D Merrett ND Wyld DK Rowlands IJ Beesley VL 2017 Anxiety, depression and quality of life in people with pancreatic cancer and their carers Pancreatology: official journal of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) [et al] 17 2 321 327 10.1016/j.pan.2017.01.008 28153446 · DOI · Paper page
  8. [10]Beesley VL Wockner LF O'Rourke P Janda M Goldstein D Gooden H Merrett ND O'Connell DL Rowlands IJ Wyld DK Neale RE 2016 Risk factors for current and future unmet supportive care needs of people with pancreatic cancer. A longitudinal study Support Care Cancer 24 8 3589 3599 10.1007/s00520-016-3212-4 27086312 · DOI
  9. [11]Gooden HM White KJ 2013 Pancreatic cancer and supportive care--pancreatic exocrine insufficiency negatively impacts on quality of life Support Care Cancer 21 7 1835 1841 10.1007/s00520-013-1729-3 23397095 · DOI · Paper page
  10. [12]Petrin K Bowen DJ Alfano CM Bennett R 2009 Adjusting to pancreatic cancer: perspectives from first-degree relatives Palliat Support Care 7 3 281 288 10.1017/S1478951509990204 19788769 · DOI · Paper page
  11. [13]Yi J Kim MA An S 2016 The Experiences of Korean Young Adult Survivors of Childhood Cancer: A Photovoice Study Qual Health Res 26 8 1044 1054 10.1177/1049732315599374 26265716 · DOI
  12. [14]Frith H Harcourt D 2007 Using photographs to capture women's experiences of chemotherapy: reflecting on the method Qual Health Res 17 10 1340 1350 10.1177/1049732307308949 18000073 · DOI
  13. [15]Wang C Burris MA 1994 Empowerment through photo novella: portraits of participation Health Educ Q 21 2 171 186 10.1177/109019819402100204 8021146 · DOI
  14. [16]Wang C Burris MA 1997 Photovoice: concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment Health education & behavior: the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education 24 3 369 387 10.1177/109019819702400309 9158980 · DOI · Paper page
  15. [17]Lopez ED Eng E Randall-David E Robinson N 2005 Quality-of-life concerns of African American breast cancer survivors within rural North Carolina: blending the techniques of photovoice and grounded theory Qual Health Res 15 1 99 115 10.1177/1049732304270766 15574718 · DOI
  16. [18]Morrison TL Thomas RL 2015 Comparing men's and women's experiences of work after cancer: a photovoice study Support Care Cancer 23 10 3015 3023 10.1007/s00520-015-2670-4 25739752 · DOI
  17. [20]Angelo J Egan R 2015 Family caregivers voice their needs: a photovoice study Palliat Support Care 13 3 701 712 10.1017/S1478951514000522 24845619 · DOI
  18. [21]Mosavel M Sanders KD 2010 Photovoice: a needs assessment of African American cancer survivors J Psychosoc Oncol 28 6 630 643 10.1080/07347332.2010.516809 21058160 · DOI
  19. [22]Wong S 2017 Assessing the benefits of Photovoice on quality of life outcomes in patients and caregivers affected by pancreatic cancer Dissertation University of Florida
  20. [23]Folstein MF Folstein SE McHugh PR 1975 "Mini-mental state" A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician Journal of Psychiatric Research 12 189 198 1202204
  21. [26]McMillan S Weitzner M (200) How problematic are various aspects of quality of life in patients with cancer at the end of life? Oncology Nursing Forum 27 5 817 823 10868392
  22. [27]Lapid MI Atherton PJ Kung S Sloan JA Shahi V Clark MM Rummans TA 2016 Cancer caregiver quality of life: need for targeted intervention Psychooncology 25 12 1400 1407 10.1002/pon.3960 26360934 · DOI
  23. [28]Petzel MQ Parker NH Valentine AD Simard S Nogueras-Gonzalez GM Lee JE Pisters PW Vauthey JN Fleming JB Katz MH 2012 Fear of cancer recurrence after curative pancreatectomy: a cross-sectional study in survivors of pancreatic and periampullary tumors Ann Surg Oncol 19 13 4078 4084 10.1245/s10434-012-2566-1 22875648 PMC11976899 · DOI
  24. [29]Clark KL Loscalzo M Trask PC Zabora J Philip EJ 2010 Psychological distress in patients with pancreatic cancer--an understudied group Psychooncology 19 12 1313 1320 10.1002/pon.1697 20119937 · DOI
  25. [30]Greenberg DB 2011 The signal of suicide rates seen from a distance in patients with pancreatic cancer Cancer 117 3 446 448 10.1002/cncr.25419 21254047 · DOI
  26. [31]Zabora J BrintzenhofeSzoc K Curbow B Hooker C Piantadosi S 2001 The prevalence of psychological distress by cancer site Psychooncology 10 1 19 28 11180574
  27. [32]Frick MA Vachani CC Hampshire MK Bach C Arnold-Korzeniowski K Metz JM Hill-Kayser CE 2017 Survivorship after treatment of pancreatic cancer: insights via an Internet-based survivorship care plan tool Journal of gastrointestinal oncology 8 5 890 896 10.21037/jgo.2017.08.07 29184694 PMC5674255 · DOI
  28. [33]Wong S Shi A George TJ Pereira DB 2014 Acceptability/Feasibility of quality of life research among distressed individuals affected by pancreatic cancer Psycho-Oncology 23 Suppl 1 96 10.1002/pon · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wong, S. S., George, T. J., Godfrey, M., Le, J., & Pereira, D. B.
Affiliations
  • Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist (US)
  • University of Florida Health (US)
  • Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution (US)
Corresponding author
Wong, Shan S.
Venue
Supportive Care in Cancer
Published
2018-06-29
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
321-328
ISSN
  • 0941-4355 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-7339
OpenAlex
W2811123917
Cited by
36
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4
FWCI
0.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Supportive Care in Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (R25 CA122061-10)
  • University of Florida
  • College of Medicine, University of Florida
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Participatory Visual Research Methods
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Family Support in Illness
Keywords
pancreatic cancer, psychological distress, caregivers, photovoice, quality of life, weight loss, gastrointestinal symptoms, fear of the future, cancer stigma, caregiver guilt, patient perspectives
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Photography, Quality of Life, Stress, Psychological, Caregivers, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review