Outcome of Supportive Talks in a Hospital Setting: Insights from Cancer Patients and Their Relatives

Abstract

The supportive talks were appreciated as psychosocial support in line with the objective, or as information on cancer treatment and routine care. The implementation of a new rehabilitation practice was challenged by the influence of the hospital setting.

Lived experiences and quality of life after gynaecological cancer—An integrative review

“…In a psychosocial rehabilitation intervention, Ledderer et al. () addressed the patient and relative as a pair, and the results showed that some of the couples found that the intervention facilitated their communication and strengthened their relationship. Studies by Sekse et al.…”

“…A descriptive approach was therefore applied. The interventions investigated various aspects of rehabilitation, using different kinds of methods: two randomised controlled trials (Ledderer, la Cour, & Hansen, 2014;Olesen et al, 2016), three quasi-experimental studies (Meltomaa et al, 2004;Seibaek & Hounsgaard, 2006;Seibaek & Petersen, 2016), one clinically controlled trial (Mouritsen, Kjaergaard, Petersen, & Seibaek, 2013), two follow-up studies (Rud, Bjørgo, Kristensen, & Kongsgaard, 2009;Sekse et al, 2014), one pilot study (Olesen et al, 2015) (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( (("late Holt, Mogensen, Jensen, & Hansen, 2015; Table 5). In nine studies, the evaluation was performed quantitatively via questionnaires, global ratings, imaging and VAS scores, whereas two of the interventions applied a qualitative evaluation methodology.…”

Translating Patient Experiences into Clinical Practice

“…For example, trained nurses were available for questions, discussions and emotional support, and the inclusion of the supportive talks at the point of hospital admission facilitated an early discussion of any concerns related to the cancer diagnosis and treatment, which might be held by patients and relatives. Th is seemed much appreciated by many of the participants in the study (Ledderer, la Cour & Hansen, 2014).…”

“…Th e research on 'supportive talks' from 2010-11, published by Ledderer et al 2013Ledderer et al , 2014 Framed by Scandinavian institutionalism (Sahlin & Wedlin, 2008), the analytical focus in examining our data is on actors and their perspectives, particularly their needs, expectations and demands in relation to patient involvement; the practices and meanings of patient involvement; and contexts, including patients' previous treatment experience, health professionals' clinical routines and institutional structures. We focus on how different actors in each phase of the translation process conceptualised, articulated and implemented -that is, translated -their understanding of the concept of patient involvement, and how the interplay between actors and contexts shaped diff erent meanings as well as 'edited' the translation process from the report on patient needs through to the implementation of the 'supportive talks' in clinical practice.…”

“…Th e study developed by the research team used a randomised clinical trial (RCT) design supplemented by qualitative components; it was carried out in 2010 -11 and involved 42 patients and relatives (Ledderer et al, 2013). Th e intervention investigated by the study targeted interpersonal communication between a patient and a relative, everyday life issues and social relationships (Ledderer, la Cour & Hansen, 2014;la Cour, Ledderer & Hansen, 2015), and comprised two components: 1) Th ree sessions of 'supportive talks' between a patient, a relative and a nurse. Th ese sessions were carried out within the fi rst two months from the day of hospital admission and were held at the hospital; 2) a one-week residential rehabilitation course (9 months after hospital admission) held at a rehabilitation centre.…”