Patients’ experiences of ‘feeling on their own’ following a diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a...
Click here to load reader
Transcript of Patients’ experiences of ‘feeling on their own’ following a diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a...
International Journal of Nursing Studies 38 (2001) 651–661
Patients’ experiences of ‘feeling on their own’ following adiagnosis of colorectal cancer: a phenomenological approach
C. Taylor*
Cancer Unit, Northwick Park and St. Mark’s Hospitals, Watford Road, Harrow, Hertfordshire, HA1 3UJ, UK
Received 23 June 2000; received in revised form 2 October 2000; accepted 4 October 2000
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to describe a Hermeneutical phenomenological study of the experience of being diagnosedwith colorectal cancer. The research objective was to understand this particular lived experience and uncover themeanings and structures within it. Eight patients who had been diagnosed with colorectal cancer in the preceding four
weeks were purposively sampled to describe their experiences. Data was generated using semi-structured, in-depth, face-to-face interviews. The data was analysed using the method described by Benner. Six themes were identified as the maincomponents of this experience for these patients. An overview of the participants’ experiences is presented followed by a
more detailed discussion of one of the most poignant themes, which is entitled ‘Feeling ‘on your own’’.# 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Colorectal cancer is one of the commonest cancers in
the United Kingdom. It affects both men and womenequally, with over 30,000 new cases each year (N.H.S.E.,1997). This means on average, 650 patients are told
every week that they have bowel cancer. Consequentlymany health care professionals have contact withpatients with this disease. Whilst the profile of colorectal
cancer has improved in the last few years, through themedia, the launch of several bowel cancer charities andthrough Government policies, this has yet to fullyimpact on the care patients with cancer receive. Also
evidence informing best practice, for instance, theimportance of addressing cancer patients psychologicalfunctioning at time of diagnosis (Butow et al., 1996), is
not always recognised. There is a need to raise healthcare professionals awareness to colorectal cancer pa-tients’ experiences, promoting the provision of high-
quality patient-centred care.There is no doubt that any cancer diagnosis elicits
multiple emotions and psychological demands (Frank-
Stromberg, 1989; Greer and Silberfarb, 1982; Bliss andJohnston, 1995; Hughes, 1987; Parle et al., 1996).
Anxiety, depression, anger and guilt have been sug-
gested as the commonest reactions to this diagnosis(Peck, 1972). Muzzin et al. (1994) described ‘theexperience of cancer’, as living with the intolerable
incompatibility of life and death. Whilst this may appearan extreme view when many patients have a positiveoutlook, Weisman and Worden (1976) assert that all
newly diagnosed cancer patients will have some‘existential concerns’. The existential affects may includeconsidering the meaning of life, reviewing past achieve-ments and a search of own’s own spirituality. It is not
surprising therefore, that cancer patients often facecommunication difficulties, both within their own familyand in the wider social field (Wortman and Dunkel-
Schetter, 1979; Plant, 1995; Peck, 1972; O’Connor et al.,1990). Difficulty or inability in articulating suchconcerns and reactions, to those close to them, may
add to this distress.This study aimed to increase understanding of the
experiences of a sample of colorectal cancer patients. It
also offered a small group of patients’ recentlydiagnosed with colorectal cancer the opportunity to telltheir own ‘story’ and share their experiences. Throughdescription and analysis, an appreciation of their own
interpretation of the events and emotions experienced*Tel.: +44-20-8869-2472.
E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Taylor).
0020-7489/01/$ - see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 2 0 - 7 4 8 9 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 1 0 9 - 7
following their diagnosis, was anticipated. Awareness ofthese possible experiences would then be a useful
starting point for individualised therapeutic dialoguebetween a health care professional and a patient justdiagnosed with colorectal cancer. This may be particu-
larly informative when time may be limited and/or thepatient is finding emotional disclosure difficult (Weis-man and Worden, 1976). The findings raise awareness topatients’ experiences following a diagnosis of colorectal
cancer and offer the professional ideas for providingmore sensitive and appropriate interventions to boththese patients, and those close to them.
1. Literature review
The literature review focused on the reactions to, andimplications of, any cancer diagnosis. The literature was
identified through computer searches, supplementedwith articles highlighted from the reference lists of otherarticles. A total of 53 articles were critiqued for the
literature review. Computer searches of Medline from1966, CINAHL from 1982, Clin PSYC, the BritishNursing Index, the National Research Register andRCN Journals from 1985 were completed. CINAHL’s
database provided the majority of the articles, using thefollowing terms: ‘psychological adaptation’, ‘emotionaladjustment’, ‘coping’ and ‘emotions’ with ‘neoplasm’. A
total of 232 articles were published on these subjects,many of which could quickly be disregarded for theirpalliative care bias, paediatric perspective or for their
anecdotal nature.Whilst several authors have interviewed or questioned
patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer (e.g. Bardand Sutherland, 1955; Fallowfield et al., 1986; Luker
et al., 1996) there has been no research exclusivelyfocusing on newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients.Many studies selected groups of patients with different
types of cancer (Frank-Stromberg, 1989; Peck, 1972;Aitken-Swan and Easson, 1959; Gotay, 1984; Weismanand Worden, 1976), the last three studies comparing
psychological adjustment with type of tumour. Con-trastingly, whereas Pettingale et al. (1988) found noevidence that type of tumour affected overall mental
adjustment, Weisman and Worden (1976) described howpatients with colon cancer had the lowest levels ofpsychosocial concerns, when compared to five otherpatient groups with cancer.
Weisman and Worden (1976) and Gotay’s (1984)studies do base their data on the experience of beingdiagnosed with cancer on interviews with patients in the
first few weeks following their diagnosis. Several studiesin describing the psychological impact of the cancerpatient have interviewed patients months if not years
after their diagnosis (e.g. Frank-Stromberg et al., 1984).This clearly presents a different perspective to interviews
conducted when patients’ initial reactions to theirdiagnosis, should still be remembered and described
with vividness and accuracy. McCorkle andQuint-Benoliel (1983) interviewed lung cancer patientsat one and two months after diagnosis, and found that
time helped patients to assimilate their situation as lesslife threatening.
Many of the studies reviewed were orientated to howpatients cope with cancer (Muzzin et al., 1994; Ell et al.,
1989; Parle et al., 1996) and used a variety of differentresearch methods. Ell et al.’s (1989) study of nearly ahundred colorectal cancer patients concluded that
coping with cancer affects all aspects of one’s life andrequires all available personal and social resources to bebrought to bear. Dunkel-Schetter et al. (1992) used a
cross-sectional design postal survey to identify patternsof coping with cancer. They found patients used a largerepertoire of coping responses; cognitive and behaviour-
al distancing being the most common. Weiner and Dodd(1993) elicited a large amount of qualitative data oncoping with cancer in a prospective study with over 300structured interviews, highlighting the temporal unpre-
dictability and uncertainty created by the diagnosis.These studies however, fail to capture the individualisticand dynamic nature of coping responses that patients
use (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) and in searching forcoping mechanisms they detract from understanding theexperience in its entirety.
Most of the studies that focus exclusively on theexperiences of colorectal cancer patients are orientatedto effects of treatment. Such studies compare oucomes ofdifferent surgical procedures (Frigell et al., 1990;
Sprangers et al., 1995; Devlin et al., 1971), assess qualityof life post-operatively (Ulander et al., 1997; Williamsand Johnston, 1983), or are orientated to follow-up after
sugery (Kjeldsen et al., 1999). Whynes and Nielson(1997) assessed physical symptoms and psychologicaldistress pre- and post-surgery, to identify the extent to
which pre-operative symptoms persisted after treatment,finding that 80% of patients reported the presence ofworry and nervousness pre-operatively. However, this
data were taken from patients one day pre-operatively:the high levels of anxiety detected are thus moreindicative of their psychological reactions to the treat-ment, than the diagnosis.
Moderate levels of uncertainty and high informationalneeds have been found in colorectal cancer patients bothimmediately following surgical treatment (Galloway and
Graydon, 1996) and six to eight weeks following surgery(Knowles et al., 1999). Knowles et al. (1999) attributedthe higher than anticipated (compared to age-matched
adult norms) anxiety levels detected at this stage, to theirappraisal of the diagnosis. Weisman and Worden’s(1976) study supported that the most difficult time for
patients with colorectal cancer, in general came early intheir treatment follow-up, with the vulnerability dis-
C. Taylor / International Journal of Nursing Studies 38 (2001) 651–661652
played in the first few weeks decreasing through the 100-day assessment period. These studies create curiosity for
examining patients’ experiences prior to the start oftreatment.
The above studies chose not to use qualitative
methodologies to investigate the meaning andimpact of the diagnosis, concentrating instead ondescribing more generic reactions and experiences.There is also abundant use of psychological assessments
to report these experiences, (Peck, 1972; Ell et al., 1989;Mischel et al., 1984; Grassi et al., 1993), which whenused alone, may limit the meaningfulness of
personal perspectives. Thus none of the studies de-scribed directly address the concerns and emotions ofbeing diagnosed with colorectal cancer, using a qualita-
tive methodology. It is therefore felt essential to reportthis ‘experience’ from the patient’s perspective, usingtheir own words.
2. Rationale
There is a need for research that describes patients’
experiences following the diagnosis of colorectal cancerand highlights any particular issues that may be createdby this diagnosis. Many of the studies reviewed had a
hypothesis or specific topic of investigation. In thepresent study, a qualitative approach was chosen so thatthe data could speak for itself, and would not be
constrained by a deductive methodology. It wasassumed that interviewing patients within four weeksof being given their diagnosis, would elicit more accurateinterpretations of their experiences of being diagnosed
with colorectal cancer.The researcher felt in a privileged position to have
access to patients so soon after diagnosis, working as a
Macmillan Colorectal Nurse Specialist, and beinginvolved in their care from time of diagnosis. It waspossible to inform many of the patients about the
research at this very early stage in their cancer journey,without feeling that this was insensitive or inappropri-ate, because a sufficiently good rapport had been
established through the clinical contact. The researcherwas also comfortable talking to patients about theirfeelings following the diagnosis and felt she had theinterpersonal skills to address sensitive issues such as
sexuality and death that may be prompted by theresearch technique. Furthermore, any subsequent issuesany participant may have could be addressed later by the
researcher within her clinical remit.It was therefore decided that patients diagnosed with
colorectal cancer should be offered the opportunity to
tell their story within weeks of being given theirdiagnosis, prior to starting any cancer treatment.
3. Research design and methodology
This was a small-scale study, using a qualitativeapproach called Hermeneutical Phenomenology. Theaim of the study was to uncover meanings within a
particular lived experience as described by the partici-pants in order to increase our understanding of theexperience of being diagnosed with colorectal cancer.Hermeneutical Phenomenology differs from Husserlian
Phenomenology, which is more widely described innursing research, having an ontological rather thanepistemological base (Koch, 1995), where understanding
is conceived not as a way of knowing, but as a mode ofbeing (Merleau-Ponty, 1964, cited in Beck, 1994). Thisparadigm was suited to discovering understandings in a
situation where participants may not know, but wherethey will ‘be’, themselves. Ricoeur (1981) clarifies this,‘‘man learns about himself only through his acts,
through exteriorisation of his life and through theeffects it produces on others. He comes to know himselfonly by a detour of understanding, which is, as always,an interpretation’’ (p. 51).
Any pre-judgements about the subject in question areacknowledged and any interpretations by the participantare valued for the contribution they make, throughout
the research process (Gadamer, 1976). This meantwriting regular interpretive notes. These described thefollowing: thoughts about the research, any decisions
made } particularly of a methodological nature, anyassumptions and showed how the researcher’s under-standings developed through the research process, as anaudit trail. This clear account of the research process
was an important means of substantiating the rigor ofthis study. It also necessitated detailed field notes thatwere recorded onto a dictaphone immediately after each
interview. These contained reflections on interviewtechnique, non-verbal communication, communicationswith the participant before and after the interview and
the emotional effect on the researcher. Thus theresearcher’s involvement in the making and presentationof the data is made explicit, and rather than being set
aside, is added to the participant’s interpretations, aspart of the interpretive process. This is referred to as the‘hermeneutical circle’ (Heidegger, 1962, p. 195).
Hermeneutical Phenomenology was also chosen for
its ability to focus in depth, on human experiences asthey are lived. It was felt that other research approacheswould not adequately reveal any imbued or concealed
meanings, or allow these meanings or ‘phenomena’, toappear in their fullest breadth and depth.
The limitations are that the findings are context- and
time-specific and are not therefore generalisable. Fidelityto the ethos of the methodology helped to ensure thatthe findings truly reflected the participant’s lived
experience. Several techniques used during the interviewhelped the credibility of the data, including reflexivity,
C. Taylor / International Journal of Nursing Studies 38 (2001) 651–661 653
clarification and summarising. The field notes recordedhow the participants’ non-verbal body language and
expression confirmed not only what they were saying,but the ‘deepness’ and ‘realness’ of the data for them.Enabling the participants to communicate freely and
comfortably was clearly a key issue for data collection.There were several salient occasions for the researcherduring the interviews that gave support to the findings;for instance, when a participant found words affirming
their experience that they had not articulated or evenrealised previously, or when the researcher felt afamiliarity with the words being spoken. Participants
were also asked to read and check the accuracy of thetyped transcripts of their interviews as a means ofvalidating their experiences. The ultimate test of the
trustworthiness of the findings is if the reader can believethe conclusions emanating from the data.
4. Data collection
The participants were purposively selected usingColaizzi’s criteria (cited Rose, 1994, p. 57): all partici-pants could articulate that they had bowel cancer, andtalk about what it meant to them as they were living it,
within their life. For practicality, only patients that livedwithin the local health authority, had a contacttelephone number, were well enough to have surgical
treatment, and able to read fluent English, wereincluded. Two eligible patients refused to participate,both stating that they did not have anything they wished
to say on the subject. Eight participants were conve-niently sampled following being told their diagnosis in asurgical out-patient department.
The participants were interviewed in their own homes,
within four weeks of their diagnosis, prior to startingtheir primary treatment. The interviews were one-to-one, in-depth, semi-structured interviews. The data was
collected by use of semi-structured rather than struc-tured interviewing; acknowledging the methodologicalpreference for gentle guidance rather than ‘firm control’
(Rose, 1994; Lincoln and Guba, 1985). To obtain thenecessary depth and breadth of interpretations andmeanings, the interviews were one-to-one and in-depth
(Gordon, 1997). Participants were first asked a non-threatening open question of their experiences: Couldyou start by describing when you first realised that youmight have bowel cancer?
In accordance with the chosen method, minimal leadswere then made (Parse, 1996) allowing the participantsto talk about the issues important to them (Rose, 1994).
The following broad and open-ended questions werehowever prepared, in case participants did not volunta-rily cover these selected areas: e.g. What were your
immediate reactions? How do you feel about having anoperation? How has this affected how you see yourself?
How is this affecting your day-to-day activities? Whatdid you tell your family and friends?
Seven of the interviews lasted between 60 and 90min.One finished earlier as the patient felt he had no more tosay and the interview ceased to be productive (Lane,
1993). The interviews were drawn to a close about10minutes before the end, allowing time for theparticipant to make final disclosures and for theresearcher to summarise and thus verify the interview
content. Probing and engaged active listening were alsoused to encourage dialogue, clarify points, deependescriptions and draw out embedded meanings (Sorrell
and Redmond, 1995; Benner, 1994).
5. Ethics
To address the ethical implications of this study,
patients had to be informed of the following: anonymitycould not be guaranteed, that they could withdraw fromthe study at any stage without jeopardising their
treatment in any way and that during the interview theymay reveal more than anticipated or feel comfortablewith. They were also informed that they would be givena pseudonym and there would be no reference to their
personal identity unless this was necessary for theresearcher’s supervision, but that these discussionswould be confidential. One of the most concerning
ethical issues raised by the study was the potentialvulnerability of the participants. Potential difficultieswithin the interviews were discussed with a clinical
psychologist, who also agreed to the offer of psycholo-gical support to those participants who felt distressedfollowing the interview. Whilst no participants felt theyneeded this, it was important when interviewing patients
at such an early stage in their diagnosis to have suchprovision. Before the interview commenced, patientswritten consent was recorded on the Trust’s Research
Consent Form.The initial question was chosen to allow participants
to describe their experiences in a fairly superficial and
factual way, which did facilitate an easy progression intodeeper levels of dialogue. Subsequently, there was a needto constantly assess the participant’s perceived comfort,
emotional state and negotiate their willingness to talk onsuch potentially sensitive areas. Hence there was a needto balance the desire to collect data, with a concern forthe participant’s welfare. Although the researcher
encouraged the participants to share experiencesthrough use of open questions, using silence andallowing patients closure at the end of the interview, it
was possible that this sensitivity may have limited fulldisclosure. Elements of this experience may not havebeen articulated and thus recorded.
Patients were interviewed in their homes to makethem feel more comfortable with their surroundings and
C. Taylor / International Journal of Nursing Studies 38 (2001) 651–661654
feel more control over the process. Before starting theinterview, about 30minutes was spent preparing the
participants for the interview by reiterating that therewere no right or wrong answers, that the researcher wasthere to hear about their experiences and not to judge
them and that they should only reveal what they feltcomfortable sharing. Finally, there was debriefing afterthe interview, as emotional recovery time for theparticipants, before resuming their normal activities.
Ethical approval was gained from the Trust’s ethicalcommittee.
6. Data analysis
Participants’ experiences were recorded and thentranscribed. My interpretations were recorded in thefield notes. All participants were sent their own
transcripts to check and comment on their accuracy.The data was analysed using the process described byBenner (1994, p. 59) to elicit themes and find exemplars.The process initially involved reading each interview
transcript several times, then intuiting and analysing thecontent by trying to see beyond a quote at face value.Quotes appearing to contain similar content were
grouped together in categories and further analysed tofind descriptions for the true meanings within their text.From this process, six main categories of experience or
‘themes’, were identified primarily from the dataemanating directly from the eight transcripts butsignificantly influenced by the researcher’s interpretivenotes.
When the draft of the first theme was completed it wassubmitted to two critical readers alongside the support-ing evidence, as an independent review to support the
credibility of the data analysis. The critical readers wereselected for having considerable experience of this client
group and familiarity with qualitative research. Theywere satisfied with the analysis and one commented onthe uncanny familiarity she had had on first reading the
participants’ quotes. Three of the participants hadspontaneously volunteered to be of further assistanceat the end of their interviews, and so were contacted todiscuss the researcher’s interpretations, clarify any
uncertainties and to check the accuracy of the analysis.When the six themes were finalised, the interview
transcripts were then read again to confirm that they
captured the full meanings within the experience and toidentify any ‘exemplars’ that could be used for illustra-tion of these themes within the interpretive account. Five
specific descriptions were identified within the text thatdescribed one of the themes or sub-themes in a way thateither showed the particular unit of analysis in its
entirety or offered greater insight than could be revealedby displaying just a quote from within it. These werethen woven into the written account of the findingsalongside participants’ quotes, extracts from literature,
the researcher’s personal observations and entries fromthe audit trail and field notes.
7. The findings
Six themes were identified. Together they presentthese participants’ experiences of being diagnosed withcolorectal cancer. Each theme has one or more sub-themes (see Table 1). The themes are presented
sequentially; the first three positioned as they wereinterpreted to have occurred within their experiences;the next two fitting logically into this order and the last
Table 1
Main themes Sub-themes
(1) Making sense of the diagnosis Getting over the shock
Searching for answers
Putting it in perspective
Comparing with others’ experiences
(2) Fearing the worst Preparing for dying
Worrying that the cancer will spread
(3) Redefining the future Reviewing life
Facing the unknown
Anticipating new ways of being
(4) Having to go with the treatment Handing over responsibility
(5) Managing day-to-day Containing it
Keeping busy
Looking on the bright side
(6) Feeling ‘on your own’ Seeking support
Protecting others
C. Taylor / International Journal of Nursing Studies 38 (2001) 651–661 655
theme was pervasive throughout all the experience. Thelast theme ‘feeling on your own’ shall be discussed in
more depth after an overview of the other themes.
8. Summary of the experience
The participants’ initial descriptions revealed how
shocked they were by the news. They felt frightened anduncertain about the future, worrying about the treat-ments proposed, the cancer spreading and survivingboth the surgery and the cancer. This was perceived as a
sufficient threat to their lives to make plans for theirdeath.
The associated emotions were difficult to tolerate at
times and were not always shared with those close tothem. They discussed how they managed these emotionsday by day: by keeping busy, containing it and looking
on the bright side. Not only did participants have to findways of managing their own emotions, but they wereclearly concerned about the pain that their diagnosis wascausing to others close to them. Participants detailed
accounts of when they told their family the ‘bad news’,illustrated the scope of this angst. As a result, theparticipants were understandably protective to those
they loved; playing down their concerns, omitting theirworst fears and deciding not to tell certain familymembers. The desire to protect others was interpreted to
create barriers in communication that distanced themfrom others. This experience was part of the themeentitled ‘feeling on your own’ that has been selected to
discuss in more detail due to its lack of reference in thecancer literature and its poignancy.
9. Feeling ‘on your own’
This theme explores the participants’ experiences of
how the diagnosis affected their perceptions of self andtheir relationships with others. They were forced tothink about themselves and their significant relation-
ships with others, and in doing so appeared to movethrough a very personal emotional journey recountingwho they were, what they had achieved, what their
values and beliefs were, and who mattered most in theirlives. All but one of the participants had clearly taken‘time out’ to reflect on their lives, as a result of thisexperience.
Whilst they recounted this greater picture of their life,their descriptions of self suggested that they wereremoved from the here and now. It seemed this was
both a consequence of the abstraction of their reflexivityand through considering the possibility of their owndeath, they had contemplated life carrying on without
them. This feeling of detachment was also apparent on amore local level, the normal activities they were
normally involved in, perceived to be continuing tohappen around or outside of them. Half of the
participants alluded to feelings of isolation and socialembarrassment by the diagnosis; one made his thoughtson this explicit:
What can’t they talk about it for, what’s wrong with it,
you know like you have leprosy or something..they’d bestanding talking and you couldn’t talk to them ..if ..ifthey brought it up you could talk more to them then...
but they wouldn’t bring the subject up. They’d bring itup with the wife and talk to her, but to you they wereall...you know they’d be sat talking in the kitchen and
you’d walk into the room and everything quiet..sothat’s ... but other people seem to feel embarrassedabout talking about it and then that makes you feel
embarrassed(The italics represent the participants’ verbatimcomments)
This participant describes the sense of exclusion
experienced both by sensing that other people weretalking about him and ‘it’ without him, and his owndifficulty in communicating about the cancer with
others. A couple of participants had witnessed peopleavoid them and had painfully felt the stigma of beingbranded a ‘cancer patient’. Two compared theirexperience with having leprosy and AIDS. These
analogies indicate the effects that the diagnosis had onself-image, social identity and the felt social restrictions.
In some interviews the experience of feeling on their
own, was more visible in the way participants describedtheir experiences, than in the content: I did this, I feelthat, I am. Many of the participants talked about
anticipated changes in self: what they might look or feellike after the surgery and possible effects of chemother-apy. They imagined new ways of being that would makethem ‘feel’ different, e.g. would they lose their hair,
would the scar show, how would their bowels function.This seemed to be a bigger point of discussion for themen than the women.
As described in the methodology, interpretations ofeach interview had been recorded in the field notes andthese formed a valuable part of the data analysed. One
of the participant’s, whose reflections are below,commented after the interview that he had not realiseduntil he had expressed his feelings to the researcher, that
he felt like this:
‘‘And when we received this news I felt very alone..um,because however close people are to you, your wife,your children, whatever you want to call them. It’s
actually happening to you, not to them’’. . .‘‘}what’sgoing to happen is going to happen to my body, nobodyelse’s body. And however..we use the word em-
pathy...there are corners of you which think, ‘You’reon your own buddy’ ’’.
C. Taylor / International Journal of Nursing Studies 38 (2001) 651–661656
When this participant said these words, the researcherexperienced a coldness in the air and an emotional
distance come between them. The experience quitepowerfully reinforced his sense of isolation. It was hisbody and thus only he would and could experience what
it meant to have colorectal cancer. It was interesting thaton subsequent discussion with this participant (duringthe analysis process on this theme), that he realisedthrough articulating his experiences, the sense of
uniqueness had lessened for him. It would seem reason-able to suggest that by sharing his feelings and thoughts,he felt less ‘on his own’. This indicated the next aspect of
the theme, which was the difficulty in sharing suchthoughts and feelings.
I don’t talk to him about it. We don’t talk about it.
Oh yes, of course, (you think you’re dying) but Ihaven’t said that to anybody else
Several participants admitted to relationships wherethey felt unable to communicate openly and share
concerns, for fear of upsetting others. This wasconfounded by their difficulty in talking about thecancer diagnosis and any associated feelings. Hence their
difficulty and sometimes inability to discuss the situationwith others close to them, prevented the sense ofsharing, of getting through it together. It was interpreted
that they felt guilty about causing other family membersworry, often expressing that the family had enoughstress to deal with, without this. This created a situation
where no one said anything too emotional about thesituation for fear of upsetting the other:
it’s him I worry about now because he looks sodrawn..and I think I can’t do anything, you know. I justgot to carry on..I don’t know how to alleviate him. If I
was...if I was in his position, I would be the same....ButI can’t physically help the family in that respect.
There was awareness that the diagnosis did inevitablyaffect all the family, and they appeared to believe that it
would be helpful to be silent. However, this createdbarriers in communicating with those that they wouldusually rely on the most to share their experiences. Some
of the participants stated that as long as they presentedan appearance of confidence and calmness about theirsituation to the rest of the family, however difficult thatmight be, then may be they would all be able to cope.
Consequently, they adopted a superficial cheerfulness inan attempt to avoid discussing the real issues. Ironicallythis impasse in communication backfired, since they had
little insight into how particularly their spouses werefaring, and they worried more. All the participantsdescribed this inhibition or inability to communicate,
which for some created the silences that furtherreinforced the feeling that they were on their own.
Finally it was clear that when participants were ableto recruit the support of others, their loneliness was
moderated.
To know that there are people there that I can enjoy
life with and do things with, if I need to talk about itthat I can talk about it... It’s the knowing that peopleare there.
Even those who felt that the people around themcould not understand or share in this experience, having
them there was still supportive. The participants in thisstudy also gained comfort from the support that camefrom friends and acquaintances who had had similar
experiences, health-care professionals and for some,their faith brought great solace.
This theme addressed both personal and public
attitudes to cancer, reflections on life, family andrelationships with others, feelings about self, andcommunication and coping within the family. Theirreasons for feeling alone were variable in expression, for
some it was the social embarrassment, for others thedifficulty in sharing feelings with the family and forothers the perceived individuality of their experience and
anticipated changes in self. In summary, it appeared thatthe main reason causing their sense of isolation was thegeneral inhibition to communicate about cancer.
10. Discussion
Meanings and personal interpretations matter withinHermeneutical Phenomenology (Leonard, 1994), so theresearcher will now refer to her own interpretations
during the study using the first person. Thus, thismethod allowed me to incorporate any experiencesrather than having to bracket or guard against these as
potential sources of bias. Consequently it has increasedunderstandings of self as well as, the experience. Themethodology not only suited my own beliefs, but kept
the orientation of the research to the participants’subjective perceptions, valuing both individualism andholism allowing this experience to be fully described.
The results presented looked at one of the six themesthat was elicited from the data, entitled ‘Feeling on yourown’. This theme can be summarised as follows: theparticipants perceived that no one else could appreciate
the impact of this diagnosis on their bodies, their need toprotect others, coupled with the existing personal andsocial difficulties in talking about cancer and the
associated emotions of fear and embarrassment thatled to a sense of ‘aloneness’. This theme was selected fordiscussion following its exposition as one of the
participants’ most pervasive and powerful experiences,revealing not only the personal difficulties of being
C. Taylor / International Journal of Nursing Studies 38 (2001) 651–661 657
diagnosed with colorectal cancer, but also the socialimplications of the diagnosis.
Comparisons with research findings of patients withother cancer diagnoses are not possible with thisresearch methodology. However, it was felt that having
bowel cancer did make it more difficult for some of theparticipants to talk about their condition and explain toothers, due to the taboo around discussing bowels and alack of understanding of their anatomy and function.
The bowels are an area of the body not discussed inpolite company and are associated with dirt and smell.This social viewpoint, can only add to the known
stigmatisation of cancer (Sontag, 1978), heighteningperceived sense of aloneness.
Whilst all the other themes were supported by existing
research findings, the last theme was only referenced inthe literature by implication, as both cancer patients’need for support, which was also described in this study
(Dunkel-Schetter et al., 1992; O’Connor et al., 1990;Weisman and Worden, 1976; Frank-Stromberg et al.,1984; Ell et al., 1989; Grassi et al., 1993; Weiner andDodd, 1993) and also their difficulty communicating
with those close to them (Peck, 1972; Bliss andJohnston, 1995; Plant, 1995; Dunkel-Schetter et al.,1992). But these studies did not state that these patients
felt isolated, excluded and very alone. So whilst thisexperience is not being newly reported, its significancefor these participants is.
It was their difficulty in communicating with thoseclosest to them that really surprised me; they stated thatthere had been very few other events in their life wherethey had not shared their thoughts with their spouse or
children. Their discomfort in social interaction and asense of uneasiness with intimacy, established a sense ofexclusion, leading to further isolation. Their interpreta-
tions of the diagnosis and expectations of the future alsoled to changes in their perceptions of self, again makingthem feel ‘less normal’ and possibly different.
I feel the interviews captured the experience of beingdiagnosed with colorectal cancer. The majority of theparticipants also responded that they had found the
experience of being interviewed helpful, presumably byproviding them with the opportunity to share suchthoughts and allow some catharsis. A couple ofparticipants commented that they had not revealed the
content of their interview to anyone else, which was alsofelt to confirm the trustworthiness of the data. Threeparticipants later told me that they had shown the
interview transcripts to their spouses, an unexpectedoutcome which I hoped may have addressed their‘feeling of being on their own’.
This research has been of great personal benefit,informing my role as a Macmillan nurse, whensupporting patients recently diagnosed with colorectal
cancer. In particular, it has increased my understandingof their possible reactions and experiences. When
patients are searching for the words to explain howthey feel, I sometimes use either the title of one of the
sub-themes or a verbatim quote from one of theparticipants as an educated guess about how they mightbe feeling. Whilst recognising that not all patients
diagnosed with colorectal cancer are going to experiencewhat has been interpreted in this study, I believe it mayprovide a framework to start assessing patients’experiences.
I quickly appreciated the difficulties of qualitativeresearch when I started the interviews. There wasconsiderable learning during the interview process and
I was aware that as my interviewing skills andconfidence increased, so did the quality and quantityof the data. Initially the powerful nature of the data
revealed in each interview was hard to disassociate from.I found that the participants’ experiences caused me tothink about the meaning of life, future life and possible
death and made me confront my own mortality. I alsohad a strong feeling of responsibility and involvement tothe participants which sometimes conflicted with my roleas their Macmillan nurse. Whilst my self-awareness and
field-note dictation helped, clinical supervision was veryvaluable for putting my experiences back into perspec-tive. By the eighth interview I had reached an emotional
saturation, that I felt would stop me remaining open tonew data.
I had not been prepared for the amount of data
generated: the transcripts totalled over a hundred pagesof A4, plus field notes and the audit trail. Some of thedata I interpreted as ambiguous and so spent hoursmoving from one pile of possible themes to another, and
felt I was going round in circles at times. Data analysiswas therefore much more time consuming than firstrealised. However, there comes great satisfaction with
the belief that new understandings and knowledge aregained as to the nature and meaning of the livedexperience of being diagnosed with colorectal cancer.
11. Limitations
Several limitations have been identified earlier in the
text. The number of participants was one majorlimitation. There proved to be a smaller number ofeligible patients than originally expected: two patientswho were eligible and informed of the study declined to
participate. Sampling was limited by the uncertaintythat some patients expressed uncertainty as to whethertheir bowel tumour was benign or malignant. Although
Phenomenological studies generally have a small num-ber of participants, only interviewing eight made itdifficult to add breadth to some of the themes, in
situations where only one participant described differentexperiences to the others.
C. Taylor / International Journal of Nursing Studies 38 (2001) 651–661658
The study was only able to provide a ‘snapshot’ ofwhat this experience may be like. However the
philosophy helped to compensate for this, by supportingthe notion of multiple realities, allowing a description ofthe progression of emotions and thoughts, rather than a
contextual and static interpretation of the experience. Byencouraging contextualisation of these experiences,there is an expectation that the participants’ experienceswill continue to develop as time passes. Further long-
itudinal research, interviewing patients just after dis-charge from hospital, after three, six and then 12 monthswould be a fascinating annexation, to see how their
interpretations change over this time frame.The data was as thorough as the participants chose to
make it and to some extent as I encouraged it to be. It
cannot be assumed that every participants experience ofthis phenomenon was captured in its entirety (Phillips,1993). In such intensely emotional experiences there are
bound to be limitations of the spoken word. Whilst non-verbal data was recorded through the field notes, it islikely that some of this communication was lost.Videoing the interviews would have been one solution,
but I feel this would have been intrusive and may havelimited recruitment and participant comfort. Anotherpossibility would have been to supplement the interviews
with a follow-up questionnaire. Establishing the com-pleteness of the data was addressed by the furtherinvolvement of the participants in the data analysis.
12. Conclusion
Heideggerian Phenomenology was the methodologychosen to find deeper understandings of this particularhuman experience and open up new meanings of what it
may mean to be a person. It was felt that its inductiveand descriptive nature and recognition of the subjec-tiveness of experience helped to generate a tremendous
amount of data on the experience of being diagnosedwith colorectal cancer. Of the six themes identified in thedata, one theme entitled ‘Feeling on your own’ was
presented in more detail. This theme addressed thedifficulties in communicating the cancer diagnosis,particularly but not only, amongst close family and
friends, but also amongst their neighbours, workcolleagues and other acquaintances. They discussed thestress in everyday situations where some sort ofexplanation as to what was wrong with them was now
required. There were feelings of awkwardness andembarrassment in knowing what to say and how tosay it, on both sides.
Patients need time to make sense of their diagnosis,opportunities for their questions to be answered, time togrieve for any anticipated losses and the offer of support,
from diagnosis and through their treatment. Thefindings were presented to highlight the commonalties
of this experience between the participants, but it mustbe remembered that this experience is unique to each
person.
13. Implications for health care professionals
Health care professionals must consider the best way
to demonstrate an understanding of their patient’ssituation and how to give them sufficient and adequatereassurance and information in order to make thisexperience feel less frightening, uncertain and isolating.
Normalising patient’s experiences can be a valuable firststep in counteracting the sense of ‘aloneness’. Theprocess of acknowledging and normalising patients
reactions is best addressed in the first few days afterdiagnosis, preferably face-to-face. Patients need privacy,a feeling of security and time, in order to feel comfortable
disclosing their feelings and concerns. Patients who havejust been diagnosed with colorectal cancer and who areawaiting treatment, should be offered a pre-treatment
consultation, by someone knowledgeable about thesetreatments and able to counsel patients. Having avail-ability to a contact person has been identified as beingreassuring (Knowles et al., 1999).
It is suggested that entering into a dialogue with apatient to talk about such experiences may be difficultfor many nurses (Menzies, 1960; Maguire, 1985).
However such skills can be developed, if support andguidance is given (Tait et al., 1982). Teaching of suchcommunication skills must be addressed within nursing
and medical school education. Equally important to theskills training is the provision of adequate emotionalsupport, to enable health care professionals to cope withthe information that such communication skills can
yield. Providing clinical supervision to personnel wherethis level and intensity of communication is required, isessential in preventing emotional burnout.
Information on how the surgery will affect appear-ance, function and feelings should also be offered in pre-operative assessment schedules, letting the patient
dictate the amount and type of information given atthis time. It appears that patients with colorectal cancerseek information in order to reappraise the threat of the
diagnosis and treatments (Knowles et al., 1999). Patientsinformation needs should be supplemented with writtenliterature, using familiar vocabulary and pictures thatillustrate the part of the body involved. It may also be
useful to discuss what the patient wants to tell the familyand how to phrase and explain their diagnosis andtreatment. It is important to consider the impact that the
diagnosis may have had on the whole family and alsooffer them support and involvement in any discussions.
Whilst this is a very personal experience, there are
other patients who have had colorectal cancer who mayhave had similar experiences. Offering access to patients
C. Taylor / International Journal of Nursing Studies 38 (2001) 651–661 659
who have ‘been there’ and come out the other side canbe tremendously comforting in counteracting the belief
that no one else could ever know what they were goingor would go through. I have a list of patients who havefinished treatment for colorectal cancer and who have
volunteered their support to ‘new’ patients either overthe phone or in person.
Support groups, helplines run by cancer charities andother specialist agencies can offer a lifeline to patients
and their families, helping them feel they have access topeople who will be able to help them, if and when theyneed it. It appeared for some participants that knowing
that there were ‘people out there’ was sufficient inhelping them get through the experience.
There is also a wider need to help these patients feel
less stigmatised by this diagnosis. This requires increas-ing public awareness to bowel cancer. There is a need toinform the public about all those that survive cancer, the
small number of patients requiring permanent stomas(Karanjia et al., 1994) and the ease with which mostpatients get through the surgery. We also need to breakdown the taboos associated with bowels and make it
acceptable to use the word ‘bowel’ in public. Nursesrepresent such a large working population and use thisword everyday in their work with patients; hence, we
should seize the opportunity to be a clearly powerfulgroup of opinion formers in this respect.
References
Aitken-Swan, J., Easson, E.C., 1959. Reactions of cancer
patients on being told their diagnosis. British Medical
Journal 1, 779–783.
Bard, M., Sutherland, A.M., 1955. Psychological impact of
cancer and its treatment: IV adaptation to radical mastect-
omy. Cancer 8, 656–672.
Beck, C.T., 1994. Phenomenology: its use in nursing research.
International Journal of Nursing Studies 31 (6), 499–510.
Benner, P., 1994. Interpretive Phenomenology: Embodiment,
Caring and Ethics in Health and Illness. Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bliss, J., Johnston, B., 1995. After diagnosis of cancer: the
patient’s view of life.. International Journal of Palliative
Nursing 1 (3), 126–133.
Butow, P.N, Kazemi, J.N., Bleeney, L.J., Griffin, A., Dunn,
S.M., Tattersall, M.H.N., 1996. When the diagnosis is cancer:
patient communication experiences and preferences. Cancer
77 (12), 2630–2637.
Devlin, B.H., Plant, J.A., Griffin, M., 1971. Aftermath of surgery
for anorectal cancer. British Medical Journal 3, 415–418.
Dunkel-Schetter, C., Feinstein, L.G., Taylor, S.E., Falke, R.L.,
1992. Patterns of coping with cancer. Health Psychology 11
(2), 79–87.
Ell, K.O., Mantell, J.E., Hamovitch, M.B., Nishimoto, R.H.,
1989. Social support, sense of control and coping among
patients with breast, lung, or colorectal cancer. Journal of
Psychosocial Oncology 7 (3), 63–89.
Fallowfield, L.J., Baum, M., Maguire, P., 1986. Effects of
breast conservation on psychological morbidity associated
with diagnosis and treatment of early breast cancer. British
Medical Journal 293, 1331–1334.
Frank-Stromberg, F., 1989. Reactions to the diagnosis of
cancer questionnaire: development and psychometric evalua-
tion. Nursing Research 38 (6), 364–369.
Frank-Stromberg, M., Wright, P.S., Segalla, M., Diekmann, J.,
1984. Psychological impact of the ‘Cancer Diagnosis’.
Oncology Nursing Forum 11 (3), 16–24.
Frigell, A., Ottander, M., Stenbeck, H., Pahlman, L., 1990.
Quality of life of patients treated with abdominoperineal
resection or anterior resection for rectal carcinoma. Annals
Chirurgiae et Gynaecologiae 79, 26–30.
Gadamer, H.G., 1976. In: Linge, D. (Ed.), Philosophical
Hermeneutics. University of California Press, London. Cited
in Annells, M. Hermeneutical phenomenology: philosophical
perspectives and current use in nursing research. Journal of
Advanced Nursing 23, 705–713.
Galloway, S.C., Graydon, J.E., 1996. Uncertainty, symptom
distress, and information needs after surgery for cancer of the
colon. Cancer Nursing 19 (2), 112–117.
Gordon, N., 1997. Critical reflection on the dynamics and
processes of qualitative research interviews. Nurse Research-
er 5 (2), 72–80.
Gotay, C.C., 1984. The experience of cancer during early and
advanced stages: the views of patients and their mates. Social
Science and Medicine 18 (7), 604–613.
Grassi, L., Rosti, G., Lasavia, A., Marangolo, M., 1993.
Psychosocial associated with mental adjustment to cancer.
Psycho-Oncology 2, 11–20.
Greer, S., Silberfarb, P.M., 1982. Psychological concomitants
of cancer: current state of research. Psychological Medicine
12, 563–573.
Heidegger, M., 1962. Being and Time. Harper and Row, New
York.
Hughes, J.E., 1987. Psychological and social consequences of
cancer. Cancer Surveys 6 (3), 455–475.
Karanjia, N., Corder, A., Bearn, P., Heald, 1994. Leakage from
stapled low anastomosis after total mesorectal excision for
carcinoma of the rectum. British Journal of Surgery 81,
1224–1226.
Kjeldsen, B.J., Thorsen, H., Whalley, D., Kronborg, O., 1999.
Influence of follow-up on health-related quality of life after
radical surgery for colorectal cancer. Scandinavian Journal of
Gastroenterology 5, 509–515.
Knowles, G., Tierney, A., Jodrell, D., Cull, A., 1999.
The perceived information needs of patients receiving
adjuvant chemotherapy for surgically resected colorec-
tal cancer. European Journal of Oncology 3 (4), 208–
220.
Koch, T., 1995. Interpretive approached in nursing research:
the influence of Husserl and Heidegger. Journal of Advanced
Nursing 21 (5), 827–836.
Lane, R.M., 1993. Doing Research on Sensitive Topics. Sage
Publications, London.
Lazarus, R.S., Folkman, S., 1984. Stress, Appraisal and
Coping. Springer Publishing Company, New York.
Leonard, V.W., 1994. A Heideggerian phenomenological
perspective on the concept of person. Advances in Nursing
Science 11 (4), 40–55.
C. Taylor / International Journal of Nursing Studies 38 (2001) 651–661660
Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G., 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage
Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Luker, K.A., Beaver, K., Leinster, S.J., Owens, R.G., 1996.
Information needs and sources of information for women
with breast cancer: a follow-up study. Journal of Advanced
Nursing 23, 1–8.
Maguire, P., 1985. Improving the detection of psychiatric
problems in cancer patients. Social Science and Medicine 20
(8), 815–823.
McCorkle, R., Quint-Benoliel, J., 1983. Symptom distress,
current concerns and mood disturbance after diagnosis of
life-threatening disease. Social Science and Medicine 17 (7),
431–438.
Menzies, I., 1960. A case study of the functioning of social
systems as a defence against anxiety. Human Relations 13
(2), 95–123.
Merleau-Ponty, M., 1964. The Primacy of Perception. North-
western University Press, Evanston, IL. Cited in Beck, C.T.,
1994. Phenomenology: its use in nursing research. Interna-
tional Journal of Nursing Studies 31 (6), 499–510.
Mischel, M.H., Hoestetter, T., King, B., Graham, V., 1984.
Predictors of psychosocial adjustment in patients newly
diagnosed with gynaecological cancer. Cancer Nursing 7
(8), 291–299.
Muzzin, L.J., Anderson, N.J., Figueredo, A.T., Gudelis, S.O.,
1994. The experience of cancer. Social Science and Medicine
38 (9), 1201–1208.
National Health Service Executive (N.H.S.E.), 1997. Guidance
on Commissioning Cancer Services: Improving Outcomes in
Colorectal Cancer. N.H.S.E. Dept. of Health, London.
O’Connor, A.P., Wicker, C.A., Germino, B.B., 1990. Under-
standing the cancer patients’s search for meaning. Cancer
Nursing 13 (3), 167–175.
Parle, M., Jones, B., Maguire, P., 1996. Maladaptive coping
and affective disorders. Psychological Medicine 26, 735–744.
Parse, R.R., 1996. Building knowledge through qualitative
research: the road less travelled. Nursing Science Quarterly 9
(1), 10–15.
Peck, A., 1972. Emotional reactions to having cancer. Amer-
ican Journal of Roentgenology 114 (3), 591–599.
Pettingale, K.W., Burgess, C., Greer, S., 1998. Psychological
response to cancer diagnosis: I. Correlations with prognostic
variables. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 32 (3), 255–
261.
Phillips, J.R., 1993. Researching the lived experience: visions of
the whole experience. Nursing Science Quarterly 6 (4), 166–
167.
Plant, H., 1995. The experience of families of newly diagnosed
cancer patients } selected findings. In: Richardson, A.,
Wilson-Barnett, J. (Eds.), Nursing Research in Cancer Care.
Scutari Press, London, pp. 137–151.
Ricoeur, P., 1981. Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences.
Edited and Translated by Thomson, J.B. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Rose, K., 1994. Unstructured and semi-structured interviewing.
Nurse Researcher 1 (3), 23–32.
Sontag, S., 1978. Illness as a metaphor. Farrar Strauss and
Giroux, New York.
Sorrell, J.M., Redmond, G.M., 1995. Interviews in qualitative
nursing research: differing approaches for ethnographic
studies. Journal of Advanced Nursing 21, 1117–1122.
Sprangers, M.A., Taal, B.G., Aaronson, N.K., te Velde, A.,
1995. Quality of life in colorectal cancer: stoma vs. nonstoma
patients. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 38 (4), 361–369.
Tait, A., Maguire, P., Brooke, M., Faulkner, A., Wilkinson, S.,
Thomson, L., Sellwood, R., 1982. Improving communication
skills: standardised assessments for mastectomy patients.
Nursing Times 78 (51), 2181–2184.
Ulander, K., Jeppson, B., Grahn, G., 1997. Quality of life and
independence in activities of daily living preoperatively and
at follow-up in patients with colorectal cancer. Support Care
Cancer 5, 402–409.
Weiner, C.L., Dodd, M.J., 1993. Coping amid uncertainty: an
illness trajectory perspective. Scholarly Inquiry for Nursing
Practice: An International Journal 7 (1), 17–31.
Weisman, A.D., Worden, J.W., 1976. The existential plight in
cancer: significance of the first 100 days. International
Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine 7 (1), 1–14.
Whynes, D.K., Nielson, A.R., 1997. Symptoms before and after
surgery for colorectal cancer. Quality of Life Research 6,
61–66.
Williams, N.S., Johnston, D., 1983. The quality of life after
rectal excision for low rectal cancer. British Journal of
Surgery 70 (4), 460–462.
Wortman, C.B., Dunkel-Schetter, C., 1979. Interpersonal
relationships and cancer: a theoretical analysis. Journal of
Social Issues 35 (1), 120–155.
C. Taylor / International Journal of Nursing Studies 38 (2001) 651–661 661