Evidence Hub

Understanding the role of health information in patients’ experiences: secondary analysis of qualitative narrative interviews with people diagnosed with cancer in Germany

S. Blödt, M. Kaiser, Yvonne Adam, Sandra Adami, M. Schultze, J. Müller-Nordhorn, C. Holmberg

BMJ Open, 2018

68 citations

Abstract

Objective To analyse the role and meaning of health information in individuals’ experiences with either breast, colorectal or prostate cancer in order to better understand unmet information needs of people with a cancer diagnosis. Design This is a secondary analysis of data from a qualitative interview study including narrative interviews and maximum variation sampling. A thematic analysis was conducted, followed by an in-depth analysis based on the principles of grounded theory. Setting Interviewees were sought across Germany through self-help organisations, primary care clinics, rehabilitation facilities, physicians and other healthcare professionals to develop cancer modules for the website krankheitserfahrungen.de (illness experiences.de). Participants Women with a diagnosis of breast cancer, individuals with a diagnosis of colorectal cancer and men with a diagnosis of prostate cancer. Results The meaning and role of information in the illness experiences were clearly associated with gaining control in a seemingly uncontrollable situation in which others —people, the disease— take over. Four categories characterise the ways in which information helped interviewees to regain a sense of control following a diagnosis of cancer: ‘becoming confident in one’s treatment decision’, ‘taking responsibility for one’s situation’, ‘understanding the consequences of the disease and treatment for one’s life’, and ‘dealing with fear’. There was, however, always a fine line between…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free