Distress in long‐term head and neck cancer carers: a qualitative study of carers' perspectives
Open accessAbstract
Aims and objectives: To identify and describe the triggers of emotional distress among long‐term caregivers (more than 1 year postdiagnosis) of people with head and neck cancer. Background: Limited research has been conducted on the factors that cause head and neck cancer caregivers to become distressed. Design: Qualitative cross‐sectional. Methods: In‐depth semi‐structured interviews. Interviews were conducted via telephone. The study setting was the Republic of Ireland. Results: Interviews were conducted with 31 long‐term caregivers (mean time since diagnosis 5·7 years, SD 2·9 years). Head and neck cancer caregivers experienced significant distress. Six key triggers of emotional distress were identified: understandings and fears of illness, lifestyle restrictions and competing demands, facial disfigurement, financial problems, comorbid health problems and witnessing suffering. Cutting across all of these individual causes of distress was a strong feeling of loss caused by head and neck cancer. Conclusions: Some head and neck cancer caregivers became considerably distressed by their caring role. Although distress appears to decline with time for many caregivers, some continue to be distressed for years following the patient's diagnosis. It would be useful for future research to explicitly investigate caregivers' experiences of loss. Relevance to clinical practice: Health professionals may be able to reduce distress in this group if they can help caregivers to access resources that can be used to buffer financial problems. Health professionals may also be able to reduce distress if they can work with caregivers to help them to obtain something of personal value or significance from their experience of loss and suffering.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Disruptions to caregivers' lives can be significant, and many suffer from a wide range of problems.
“Disruptions to caregivers’ lives can be significant, and many suffer from a wide range of problems [12–14].”
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 [13]
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
The psychological impact of cancer on patients’ partners and other key relatives
Pitceathly, C., & Maguire, P. (2003) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/s0959-8049(03)00309-5 · Cited by 531 · see citing works
Distress in Spouses and Patients After Treatment for Head and Neck Cancer
Verdonck‐de Leeuw, I. M., Eerenstein, S. E., Van der Linden, M. H., Kuik, D. J., de Bree, R., & Leemans, C. R. (2007) · The Laryngoscope · doi:10.1097/01.mlg.0000250169.10241.58 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Chambers M, Ryan A & Connor S (2001) Exploring the emotional support needs and coping strategies of family carers. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 8 , 99 -106.
- Chou W, Hunt Y, Beckjord E, Moser R & Hesse B (2009) Social media use in the United States: implications for health communication. Journal of Medical Internet Research 11 , e48.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Chong, E., Crowe, L., Mentor, K., Pandanaboyana, S., & Sharp, L. (2023) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-022-07468-7 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Balfe, M., Maguire, R., Hanly, P., Butow, P., O'Sullivan, E., Timmons, A., Gooberman‐Hill, R., & Sharp, L.
- Affiliations
- National Cancer Registry (IE)
- National College of Ireland (IE)
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- School of Dentistry University College Cork Cork Ireland
- University of Bristol (GB)
- Newcastle University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Balfe, Myles
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Nursing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-05-10
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 15-16
- Pages
- 2317-2327
- ISSN
- 0962-1067 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2702
- OpenAlex
- W2360905566
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4
- FWCI
- 5.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Nursing (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Maynooth University ePrints and eTheses Archive (Maynooth University) (acceptedVersion)
- NORMA (acceptedVersion)
- Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Head and Neck Cancer Studies
- Keywords
- head and neck cancer, family caregivers, caregiver distress, emotional distress, long-term caregiving, loss, facial disfigurement, financial hardship, witnessing suffering, competing demands, caregiver support
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Cross-Sectional Studies, Emotions, Female, Head and Neck Neoplasms, Humans, Ireland, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Stress, Psychological, Telephone, 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