Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How to summarise and report written qualitative data from patients: a method for use in cancer support care

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Goals of work

The goal of this study is the determination of key themes to aid the analysis of qualitative data collected at three cancer support centres in England, using the Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing (MYCaW) questionnaire.

Patients and methods

People with cancer who use complementary therapies experience and value a wide range of treatment effects, yet tools are urgently required to quantitatively measure these outcomes. MYCaW is an individualised questionnaire used in cancer support centres providing complementary therapies, scoring ‘concerns or problems’ and ‘well-being’ and collecting qualitative data about other major events in a patient’s life and what has been most important to the patient. Content analysis on 782 MYCaW questionnaires from people at these cancer support centres was carried out. The ‘concerns,’ ‘other things going on in their life’ and ‘important aspects of centre’ were thematically categorised and externally validated by a focus group, and the inter-rater reliability was calculated.

Main results

Clinical information from a cancer patient’s perspective was collected that is not measured on standard quality-of-life questionnaires; furthermore, some themes acknowledge the multi-faceted aspects of complementary and alternative medicine provision, rather than information only relating to the therapeutic intervention. Categories for qualitative MYCaW analysis have been established providing a tool for future research and/or service delivery improvement within cancer support centres such as these.

Conclusions

The established themes provide a framework to aid analysis of qualitative aspects of complementary therapy care for people with cancer, improving our understanding of how the patient’s cancer experience can be aided by complementary therapies in specialised cancer centres.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The inclusion criteria category information and instructions for new users can be accessed on the MYMOP website: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/hsrc/research/other/mymop.

References

  1. Armstrong D, Gosling A, Weinman J, Marteau T (1997) The place of inter-rater reliability in qualitative research. Sociology 31:597–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Barry C, Barry CA, Britten N, Barber N, Bradley C, Stevenson F (1999) Using reflexivity to optimise teamwork in qualitative research. Qual Health Res 9:26–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bowling A (1995) Measuring disease. A review of disease-specific quality of life measurement scales. Open Univ. Press, Buckingham, p 21

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ernst E, Cassileth BR (1998) The prevalence of complementary and alternative cancer: a systematic review. Cancer 53:2736–2740

    Google Scholar 

  5. Long AF, Mercer G, Hughes K (2000) Developing a tool to measure holistic practice: a missing dimension in outcomes measurement within complementary therapies. Complement Ther Med 8:26–31

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Meenan R (2001) Developing appropriate measures of the benefits of complementary and alternative medicine. J Health Serv Res Policy 6:38–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Molassiotis A, Fernadez-Ortega P, Pud D, Ozden G, Scott GA, Panteli V et al (2005) Use of complementary and alternative medicine in cancer patients: a European survey. Ann Oncol 16:665–663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Moris J (1991) Measurement of quality of life: how to choose an appropriate test. Cancer Topics 8:75–76

    Google Scholar 

  9. Paterson C (2004) Seeking the patient’s perspective: a qualitative assessment of EurQol, COOP-WONCA charts and MYMOP. Qual Life Res 13:871–881

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Paterson C (2005) How to involve consumers in your research team. Complement Ther Med 13:61–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Paterson C, Britten N (2000) In pursuit of patient-centred out-comes: a qualitative evaluation of MYMOP, Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile. J Health Serv Res Policy 5:27–36

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Paterson C, Thomas K, Manasse A, Cooke H, Peace G (2006) Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing (MYCaW): an individualised questionnaire for evaluating outcome in cancer support care that includes complementary therapies. Complement Ther Med 15:38–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Peace G, Manasse A (2002) The Cavendish Centre for integrated cancer care: assessment of patients’ needs and responses. Complement Ther Med 10:33–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Risberg T, Kaasa S, Wist E, Melsom H (1997) Why are cancer patients using non-proven complementary therapies? A cross-sectional multicentre study in Norway. Eur J Cancer 33:575–580

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Rodeheaver PF, Taylor AG, Lyon DE (2003) Incorporating patients’ perspective in complementary and alternative medicine clinical trial design. J Altern Complement Med 9:959–967

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sparber A, Wootton JC (2001) Surveys of complementary and alternative medicine: part II use of alternative and complementary cancer therapies. J Altern Complement Med 7:281–287

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Vaghela C, Robinson N, Gore J, Peace B, Lorenc A (2007) A pilot study: Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice (in press)

  18. Verhoef M, Balneaves LG, Boon H, Vroegindewey A (2005) Reasons for and characteristics associated with complementary and alternative medicine use among adult cancer patients: a systematic review. Integr Cancer Ther 4:274–286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Verhoef MJ, Mulkins A, Boon H (2005) Integrative health care: how can we determine whether patients benefit? J Altern Complement Med 11:S57–S65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Waitzkin H (1991) The politics of medical encounters. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  21. White MA, Verhoef MJ (2005) Toward a patient-centred approach: incorporating principles of participatory action research into clinical studies. Integr Cancer Ther 4:21–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zebrack S (2000) Cancer survivors and quality of life: a critical review of the literature. Oncol Nurs Forum 27:1395–1401

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors kindly thank Glaxo SmithKline for a £20,000 grant received by the corresponding author whilst they were working for Breast Cancer Haven. The rest of the work has been funded through the University of Westminster Research Development Fund and Penny Brohn Cancer Care. The authors would like to thank all the visitors, volunteers and staff at BCH and PBCC who contributed to this study. Lastly, the authors would like to thank the members of the focus group that met on 5th September 2006 at PBCC along with Pat Turton who facilitated the event.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Complementary Therapies, University of Westminster, 115 New Cavendish Street, London, W1W 6UW, UK

    Marie J. Polley

  2. Penny Brohn Cancer Care, Chapel Pill Lane, Pill Bristol, BS20 0HH, UK

    Helen E. Seers & Helen J. Cooke

  3. Breast Cancer Haven, Effie Road, London, SW6 1TB, UK

    Caroline Hoffman

  4. Institute of Health and Social Care Research, Peninsula Medical School, St Luke’s Campus, Heavitree Road, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK

    Charlotte Paterson

Authors
  1. Marie J. Polley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helen E. Seers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Helen J. Cooke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Caroline Hoffman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Charlotte Paterson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie J. Polley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Polley, M.J., Seers, H.E., Cooke, H.J. et al. How to summarise and report written qualitative data from patients: a method for use in cancer support care. Support Care Cancer 15, 963–971 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-007-0283-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-007-0283-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation