Cited by 22Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareCancer survivorship and careNursing care and research

Positive and Negative Interactions With Health Professionals: A Qualitative Investigation of the Experiences of Informal Cancer Carers

Gilbert, Emilee, Ussher, Jane M., Perz, Janette, Hobbs, Kim, Kirsten, Laura·2010·Cancer Nursing

Abstract

Background Empathic and informative interactions with health professionals are important for the well-being of people with cancer. However, there is a dearth of research examining the construction and experience of interactions with health professionals from the perspective of informal cancer carers. Objective The aim of this study was to explore how cancer carers subjectively position their experiences of interactions with health professionals, in particular, their construction of experiences as positive or negative, and the perceived consequences of such interactions. Positioning theory is used to examine how the sociomedical construction of health professionals shapes carers' experiences of interactions with them. Method Semistructured interviews were carried out with 53 informal cancer carers across a range of cancer types and stages, analyzed using thematic decomposition. Results Carers positioned positive interactions as those involving health professionals who were warm and genuine, accessible and approachable, and who made carers feel accepted and comfortable. In the case of allied health professionals, the provision of a space for carers' cathartic release was also constructed positively. Negative interactions were positioned as those involving poor communication and a lack of empathy, poor or absent information provision, and absence of guidance about additional support. Conclusions Positive experiences with health professionals were positioned by carers as leading…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ncc.0b013e3181da365d

Cites

38 of 38 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
Gilbert, E., Ussher, J. M., Perz, J., Hobbs, K., & Kirsten, L.
Affiliations
Nepean Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
Ussher, Jane M.
Venue
Cancer Nursing
Published
2010-11
Volume
33
Issue
6
Pages
E1-E9
ISSN
0162-220X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2075757110
Cited by
22
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cancer Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Cancer Council NSW
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
Keywords
patient-professional interaction, healthcare workers, positioning theory, empathy, communication, information provision, caregiver well-being, emotional distress, empowerment, catharsis, allied health professionals, caregiver needs, family caregivers
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Empathy, Female, Health Personnel, Home Care Services, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Interview, Psychological, Male, Middle Aged, Oncology Nursing, Social Support, Caregivers, Patient-Centered Care, Interdisciplinary Communication, 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