↓ Skip to main content

Distress in long-term head and neck cancer carers: a qualitative study of carers' perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Nursing, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Distress in long-term head and neck cancer carers: a qualitative study of carers' perspectives
Published in
Journal of Clinical Nursing, May 2016
DOI 10.1111/jocn.13242
Pubmed ID
Authors

Myles Balfe, Rebecca Maguire, Paul Hanly, Phyllis Butow, Eleanor O'Sullivan, Aileen Timmons, Rachael Gooberman-Hill, Linda Sharp

Abstract

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. Limited research has been conducted on the factors that cause head and neck cancer caregivers to become distressed. Qualitative cross-sectional. In-depth semi-structured interviews. Interviews were conducted via telephone. The study setting was the Republic of Ireland. 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. 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. 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 2%
Unknown 56 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 18%
Student > Master 10 18%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 11 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 14 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 23%
Psychology 9 16%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 11 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 May 2016.
All research outputs
#10,944,995
of 12,350,579 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Nursing
#2,800
of 3,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,868
of 274,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Nursing
#170
of 195 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,350,579 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,162 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,145 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 195 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.