Cited by 19Nursing care and researchCancer survivorship and careFamily Support in Illness

From bystander to enlisted carer – A qualitative study of the experiences of caregivers of patients attending follow-up after curative treatment for cancers in the pancreas, duodenum and bile duct

Gerhardt, Stine, Dengsø, Kristine Elberg, Herling, Suzanne, Thomsen, Thordis·2020·European Journal of Oncology Nursing

Abstract

Purpose Caregivers of patients with cancer play an important role throughout the treatment trajectory. This can be challenging and might infer health and psychosocial problems. This may especially be the case in caregivers of patients with cancers that carry a high risk of recurrence such as cancers of the pancreas, duodenum and bile duct. This study therefore explored the experiences of caregivers of patients attending follow-up after completion of treatment with curative intent for cancers of the pancreas, duodenum and bile duct. Methods A qualitative study using semi-structured, individual interviews. Data were analysed using content analysis. Results Ten caregivers of patients attending follow-up after completed curative treatment for cancers of the pancreas, duodenum and bile duct in a specialized gastro-surgical center at a tertiary hospital in the Capital Region of Denmark participated. We identified three themes: "From bystander to enlisted carer", inferring that caregivers felt enlisted as carers during treatment and follow-up, however without sufficient instruction or assessment of their needs. "Lonesome worrying" meaning that caregivers hid their feelings of concern and foreboding, and finally, "Keeping a stiff upper lip" indicating that caregivers outwardly maintained a positive face when interacting with the patient. Conclusion Caregivers described taking on a substantial burden of care without feeling competent. They experienced distress and emotional isolation…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejon.2019.101717

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gerhardt, S., Dengsø, K. E., Herling, S., & Thomsen, T.
Affiliations
  • Bispebjerg Hospital (DK)
  • Rigshospitalet (DK)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
Corresponding author
Gerhardt, Stine
Venue
European Journal of Oncology Nursing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-02
Volume
44
Pages
101717
ISSN
1462-3889 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2996274438
Cited by
19
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Oncology Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Novo Nordisk Fonden (NNF15OC0017022, NNF16OC0022680)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Family Support in Illness
Keywords
caregiver experiences, cancer caregivers, pancreatic cancer, duodenal cancer, cholangiocarcinoma, cancer follow-up care, curative treatment, caregiver burden, emotional distress, caregiver distress, caregiver-patient relationship, coping, caregiver needs assessment
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Bile Duct Neoplasms, Denmark, Duodenal Neoplasms, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Recurrence, Local, Pancreatic Neoplasms, 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