Cancer-related cognitive impairment: a mixed methods evaluation of a standard factsheet

Chloe Yi Shing Lim; Sharon He; Joanne Shaw; Haryana M Dhillon

doi:10.1007/s00520-021-06666-z

Cancer-related cognitive impairment: a mixed methods evaluation of a standard factsheet

Support Care Cancer. 2022 Mar;30(3):2375-2385. doi: 10.1007/s00520-021-06666-z. Epub 2021 Nov 6.

Authors

Chloe Yi Shing Lim^{1

2}, Sharon He^{1

3}, Joanne Shaw^{1

3}, Haryana M Dhillon^{4

5

6}

Affiliations

¹ School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
² Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-Based Decision-Making (CeMPED), School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
³ Psycho-Oncology Co-Operative Research Group (PoCoG), School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
⁴ School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. haryana.dhillon@sydney.edu.au.
⁵ Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-Based Decision-Making (CeMPED), School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. haryana.dhillon@sydney.edu.au.
⁶ Psycho-Oncology Co-Operative Research Group (PoCoG), School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. haryana.dhillon@sydney.edu.au.

PMID: 34741655
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-021-06666-z

Abstract

Purpose: To understand the impact of cancer survivors accessing a standard factsheet regarding cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI), publicly available to the Australian public via Cancer Council Australia's websites.

Methods: Twenty-three cancer survivors completed a questionnaire assessing pre-factsheet knowledge of CRCI. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore participants' experiences of CRCI and perceptions of the factsheet. Interviews were analysed via thematic analysis using a framework approach. Finally, participants completed another questionnaire assessing post-factsheet change in knowledge of CRCI.

Results: Pre- and post-factsheet questionnaire change scores indicated increased knowledge and greater confidence about CRCI. Interview data resulted in five themes: generally positive perceptions of the factsheet's layout and wording; survivors, regardless of treatments received, experienced CRCI symptoms, with some having strong negative emotional responses to their symptoms; perceptions of the factsheet's strategies to manage CRCI ranged from relevant and useful, to impractical or unrealistic if symptoms were too severe; interactions with healthcare system influenced survivors' perceptions of help-seeking, with negative healthcare experiences a major barrier; and generally positive impacts of the factsheet, with survivors praising the factsheet's ability to validate the CRCI experience, increase CRCI knowledge, influence health beliefs, and prompt help-seeking.

Conclusion: The factsheet presentation and wording were acceptable to participants. Its ability to normalise and raise awareness for CRCI validated participants' symptoms. The factsheet's potential as a first-line intervention in a stepped-care approach was identified, with participants finding the suggested self-management strategies practical. The factsheet may overcome barriers to self-reporting by encouraging patients to talk with HCPs about CRCI.

Keywords: Cancer survivor; Cancer-related cognitive impairment; Information; Mixed methods.

MeSH terms

Australia
Cancer Survivors*
Cognitive Dysfunction* / diagnosis
Cognitive Dysfunction* / etiology
Humans
Neoplasms* / complications
Survivors