"It's Just Being Honest, Isn't It?" The Communication Gap on Cancer-Related Fatigue in Oropharyngeal Cancer Survivors: A Qualitative Study.
No Thumbnail Available
All Authors
Iyizoba-Ebozue, Z.
Prestwich, R.
O'Reilly, K.
Murray, L.
Boele, F.
LTHT Author
Iyizoba-Ebozue, Zsuzsanna
Prestwich, Robin
Murray, Louise
Prestwich, Robin
Murray, Louise
LTHT Department
Oncology
Leeds Cancer Centre
Clinical Oncology
Leeds Cancer Centre
Clinical Oncology
Non Medic
Publication Date
2025
Item Type
Article
Language
Subject
Subject Headings
Abstract
Introduction: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a pervasive and debilitating symptom in patients treated for oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). This study explores communication about CRF in routine care according to patients and clinicians. Method(s): This work integrated qualitative data from a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study evaluating long-term fatigue and neurocognitive impairment in OPC patients treated with radiotherapy +/- chemotherapy and a complementary qualitative service evaluation focused on exploring how healthcare professionals (HCPs) discuss CRF. Semistructured interviews were conducted with disease-free OPC survivors and HCPs experienced in managing OPC. Reflexive thematic analysis was undertaken. Result(s): Thirty-one interviews (21 patients, 10 HCPs) were conducted. Mean interview duration was 40 min. Four themes were identified: (1) limited awareness and knowledge, (2) approaches to discussing CRF: proactive versus reactive, (3) impact of available time and timing of CRF discussions and (4) solution-oriented mindset and identified solutions. Both patients and HCPs described a lack of comprehensive understanding of CRF, contributing to an overall sense of vagueness and uncertainty. This led to a reactive rather than proactive approach to discussions, especially in the long term. Time, often limited amidst competing priorities in consultations, was seen as insufficient to address the complexities of CRF. In addition, no single optimal time to discuss CRF was identified, instead it may require multiple discussions. HCPs prioritised tangible solutions to address patient concerns, but a lack of straightforward strategies to manage CRF challenged this approach. HCPs proposed potential approaches, showing a willingness to engage in addressing the existing gaps. Conclusion(s): While patients treated for OPC often seek validation and support for CRF, discussions are hindered by limited knowledge, time and lack of clear accessible solutions. Improved dialogue is needed to address the existing gaps in communication and inform the development of patient-centred strategies for managing CRF.
Journal
European Journal of Cancer Care