Patients’ experience of cancer: evidence of the role of ‘fighting’ in collusive clinical communication
Introduction
It is widely accepted that clinician communication is an important component of the clinical care of patients who have cancer. Much attention has focused on how diagnosis is presented [1]; communication that follows diagnosis has received less attention. Although communication after diagnosis necessarily focuses on treatment options [2], it should also address patients’ psychological needs.
Current understanding of patients’ psychological needs after diagnosis has been shaped by a categorisation of psychological responses to cancer that was begun over 25 years ago and based on clinical assessments of patients with breast cancer. Initially, the categorisation focused on patients’ emotional expression. In a sample of patients undergoing breast biopsy, those categorised by the researchers as extreme suppressors of anger and other feelings were more likely to be diagnosed with cancer than were others [3]. Study of the sub-group of patients with cancer continued with a further psychological assessment 3 months after mastectomy, when each patient was allocated to one of four mutually exclusive categories according to their predominant psychological response: denial; fighting spirit; stoic acceptance; helplessness/hopelessness [4]. The categories were decided after a preliminary study that was not reported, but their theoretical and clinical importance was indicated by recording survival to 5-year follow-up. Survival proved more likely in the denial and fighting spirit groups than in those allocated to the stoic acceptance and helplessness/hopelessness categories. Follow-up to 10 years found a similar divergence in mortality [5].
Subsequently, a self-completed questionnaire was devised to measure the strength of each of these four types of response to cancer [6]. Factor-analyses have not always confirmed the distinction between these responses [7]. Nevertheless, having a way to measure responses to cancer has stimulated developments in clinical communication and focused research. A psychotherapeutic treatment, adjuvant psychological therapy, has been devised to facilitate some types of response (particularly fighting spirit) and to reduce others (including acceptance and helplessness/hopelessness) [8], [9]. Psychological responses to cancer have also become important elements of psychobiological theory and clinical research. They contributed to the development of the theory of the type C (or cancer-prone) personality [10], and evidence linking specific types of response with longer survival has contributed to psychoimmunological theories about the relationship of coping style to immunological processes [11]. In clinical research, patients’ psychological responses to cancer have sometimes been measured as treatment outcomes in their own right.
The early attempts to categorise patients’ psychological reactions to cancer have therefore been very influential. Their importance has been to demonstrate that such reactions are not epiphenomena, but are important components of patients’ clinical presentation that can be influenced therapeutically and that might, in turn, have clinical implications in their own right. However, for the theoretical and clinical inferences that are drawn from such research to be valid, it is important that psychological responses to cancer have been conceptualised accurately. Recently, however, assumptions about the concept of fighting spirit have been questioned because of findings that, contrary to earlier evidence, it has no association with prognosis in breast cancer [12], [13]. The initial approach to categorising patients’ reactions to cancer apparently relied on clinical researchers’ subjective judgements. Since this pioneering work was reported, the importance of qualitative research methods has become appreciated in medical research, and in psycho-oncology in particular [14]. Rigorous procedures are necessary to ensure that patients’ responses to disease and treatment are described in ways that reflect their experience rather than researchers’ assumptions. Surprisingly, there has been little attempt to describe patients’ psychological reactions to cancer systematically in this way.
We therefore re-examined patients’ responses to cancer using qualitative methods to identify important components of their experience. The concepts identified in previous research were derived from patients with breast cancer shortly after primary treatment. In order to derive findings that might more validly be transferable to a variety of ambulant patients with cancer, we sampled patients with different types of cancer, with contrasting prognoses and at different stages in the trajectory of their illness. The approach of previous work to categorise patients implies that different kinds of reactions are mutually incompatible or that patients have predominantly one kind of reaction. A secondary aim was therefore to derive hypotheses as to whether and how different components of patients’ experience might be inter-related.
Section snippets
Patients
Sampling was purposive, to ensure variability of types, stages and prognoses of cancer in male and female adult ambulant patients. Therefore, 33 patients were approached (of whom 30 consented) in relevant hospital clinics including general oncology clinics and follow-up and pre-admission clinics at a general teaching hospital, and from outpatient clinics and day-care at an associated hospice. All patients and practitioners were white. Participating clinicians identified patients who had
Sample
Details of participating patients are shown in Table 1. They spanned a wide range of ages and included a range of types of cancer. Patients were interviewed from 3 days to 19 years after cancer was first diagnosed.
Types of response to cancer
The analysis first identified a nearly universal type of response concerned with concealing distress from other people. Beyond this, several specific types of response were identified, which were subsequently grouped under the broad headings of responses which rejected or accepted the
Discussion and conclusion
Several findings were consistent with ways in which psychological reactions to cancer and other serious illness have previously been categorised in clinical and research literature (Table 2). Minimisation of disease, fear, shock and the search for explanation are all familiar in previous work [8], [22]. The discussion will therefore focus on responses that differed in important respects from previous descriptions and on responses that have been disregarded hitherto.
The main response that our
References (37)
Improving communication with cancer patients
Eur. J. Cancer
(1999)- et al.
Offering choice of treatment to patients with cancers: a review based on a symposium held at the 10th Annual Conference of the British Psychosocial Oncology Group, December 1993
Eur. J. Cancer
(1995) - et al.
Psychological attributes of women who develop breast cancer: a controlled study
J. Psychosom. Res.
(1975) - et al.
Psychological response to breast cancer: effect on outcome
Lancet
(1979) - et al.
Mental attitudes to cancer: an additional prognostic factor
Lancet
(1985) - et al.
Influence of psychological response on survival in breast cancer: a population-based cohort study
Lancet
(1999) - et al.
Fighting spirit in patients with cancer
Lancet
(2000) Quality control in qualitative research
Clin. Psychol. Rev.
(1993)- et al.
Patients’ reactions to attempts to increase passive or active coping with surgery
Soc. Sci. Med.
(1998) - et al.
Is patient-controlled analgesia controlled by the patient?
Soc. Sci. Med.
(1996)
Psychosocial correlates of cancer relapse and survival: a literature review
Pat. Educ. Counsel
Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model
Soc. Sci. Med.
Social comparison as a mediator of response shift
Soc. Sci. Med.
Measuring the meaning of life: the Life Evaluation Questionnaire (LEQ) for patients with incurable cancer
Eur. J. Cancer
Development of a questionnaire measure of adjustment to cancer: the MAC scale
Psychol. Med.
The mental adjustment to cancer (MAC) scale: replication and refinement in 632 breast cancer patients
Psychol. Med.
Adjuvant psychological therapy for cancer patients
Pall. Med.
Cited by (51)
Facing epistemic and complex uncertainty in serious illness: The role of mindfulness and shared mind
2021, Patient Education and CounselingCitation Excerpt :Patients may feel ambivalent and conflicted about their values when facing uncertainty. They may be uncertain about whether the values they espouse are theirs, or “borrowed” from others, for example when patients exhibit a “fighting spirit” yet wonder if they would favor equanimity and acceptance [17]. Patients who value autonomy under ordinary circumstances may need support and guidance when facing a high-stakes decision such as whether to trust their own intuitions or submit to a doctor’s advice [18].
Patient-Reported Receipt of Goal-Concordant Care Among Seriously Ill Outpatients—Prevalence and Associated Factors
2020, Journal of Pain and Symptom ManagementCitation Excerpt :This may relate to goals-of-care discussions often beginning late in the illness course of patients with advanced cancer36 or a focus on aggressive treatments in effort to maintain patient hope.31 Moreover, honest goals-of-care discussions may be undermined by the pressure patients with advanced cancer feel to stay positive and fight.32–35 Finally, we found that younger patients were more likely to report goal-discordant care, perhaps because these patients or their clinicians are less likely to prompt goals-of-care discussions as compared with older patients.
Encounters between medical and lay knowledge in therapeutic patient education. A qualitative study based on an oral chemotherapy program
2020, Patient Education and CounselingCitation Excerpt :However, while some patients undergoing OC in our study expressed the ‘battle’ metaphor [30] as a model of coping, this symbol was not unanimously used. As the value of the fighting spirit refers to the promotion of self-control and responsibility over individuals’ health [31,32], it may restrain HCPs’ capacity to acknowledge and validate patients' feelings. The primacy of self-care skills over psychosocial skills (e.g., focusing on the medical aspect of self-care and medication side effects) questions the influence of HCP medical training.