Cited by 12Cancer survivorship and careEducational Games and GamificationPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

“I was never one of those people who just jumped right in for me”: patient perspectives on self-advocacy training for women with advanced cancer

Open access
Thomas, Teresa Hagan, Murray, Patty Jo, Rosenzweig, Margaret, Taylor, Sarah, Brufsky, Adam, Bender, Catherine, Larkin, Mikayla, Schenker, Yael·2023·Supportive Care in Cancer

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Purpose Patients with advanced cancer experience many complicated situations that can make self-advocacy (defined as the ability speak up for yourself in the face of a challenge) difficult. Few self-advocacy interventions exist, and most are atheoretical with minimal patient engagement. The purpose of this study is to describe participant perspectives of a novel, self-advocacy serious game intervention called Strong Together.Methods This was a qualitative cross-sectional descriptive study among women receiving cancer care at an academic cancer center within 3 months of an advanced gynecologic or breast cancer diagnosis. Participants randomized to receive the intervention completed one-on-one semi-structured interviews 3-months post Strong Together and had the option to share voice journals about their experiences. Inductive qualitative approaches were used to descriptively analyze transcripts and voice journals. Descriptive content analysis approaches were used to group similar codes together into themes summarizing participants' experiences engaging with the Strong Together intervention.Results Participants (N = 40) reported that the Strong Together intervention was acceptable, noting that it was realistic and reflective of their personal experiences. Overarching themes included seeing myself in most scenarios and wanting more content; giving me the go ahead to expect more; offering ideas for how to stand up for myself; reinforcing what I am already doing; and reminding me of what I have. Participants suggested adding additional content including diverse characters.Conclusion This study demonstrated that women with advanced cancer were receptive to a self-advocacy skills-building intervention. Future research should explore the mechanisms linking serious games to learning and health outcomes.

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/s00520-022-07531-3

Cites

31 of 31 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?

  • Advocating is a strategy for patients and families to engage in the care experience meaningfully, enabling informed decisions, effective communication with providers, and strong connections with others.

    “Advocating is a strategy for patients and families to engage in the care experience meaningfully. By doing so, they can make informed decisions, communicate effectively with providers, and build strong connections with others [46].”

    From The hospital-to-home care transition experience of home care clients: an exploratory study using patient journey mapping (2023) · cites this paper as [46]

    The Background says patients meaningfully engage in care through self-advocacy by making informed decisions, communicating with providers, and building strength through connections to others. It does not extend that account to families advocating or gaining those benefits; the Methods mentions family members only in scenarios about balancing patients’ priorities with their needs. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    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: 1

  1. [20]Creswell JW, Poth CN (2017) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches, 4th ed. SAGE Publications, Inc

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thomas, T. H., Murray, P. J., Rosenzweig, M., Taylor, S., Brufsky, A., Bender, C., Larkin, M., & Schenker, Y.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Thomas, Teresa Hagan
Venue
Supportive Care in Cancer
Published
2023-01
Volume
31
Issue
1
Pages
96-96
ISSN
  • 0941-4355 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-7339
OpenAlex
W4313544789
Cited by
12
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
FWCI
1.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Supportive Care in Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • American Cancer Society (MSRG-18-051-51)
  • National Palliative Care Research Center (Career Development Award)
  • National Institute on Aging (K24 AG070285)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
self-advocacy, serious games, advanced cancer, women with cancer, gynecologic cancer, breast cancer, patient perspectives, patient engagement, treatment acceptability
MeSH terms
Breast Neoplasms, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Patients

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