Rehabilitation of the breast cancer patient

Burdick, Daniel

doi:10.1002/1097-0142(197508)36:2+<645::aid-cncr2820360806>3.0.co;2-x

Cited by 26 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…People who have been robbed report being more afraid of another robbery than their neighbors (Stinchcombe, Adams, Heimer, Scheppele, Smith, & Taylor, 1980). Cancer patients are tremendously fearful of recurrence and interpret any new symptoms, no matter how minor, as indicative of cancer (Burdick, 1975). Once victimized, it is relatively easy to see oneself in the role of victim once again; the experience is now "available" and one sees oneself as "representative" of the subsample of people who are victimized (Kahneman & Tversky, 1973).…”

Section: The Assumption Of Invulnerabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

A Theoretical Perspective for Understanding Reactions to Victimization

Janoff‐Bulman

Frieze

1983

Journal of Social Issues

614

317

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although specific victimizations may differ, there appear to be common psychological responses across a wide variety of victims. It is proposed that victims' psychological distress is largely due to the shattering of basic assumptions held about themselves and their world. Three assumptions that change as a result of victimization are: 1) the belief in personal invulnerability; 2) the perception of the world as meaningful; and 3) the view of the self as positive. Coping with victimization is presented as a process that involves rebuilding one's assumptive world. Introductions to the papers that follow in this issue are incorporated into a discussion of specific coping strategies adopted by victims.

show abstract

Section: The Assumption Of Invulnerabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

A Theoretical Perspective for Understanding Reactions to Victimization

Janoff‐Bulman

Frieze

1983

Journal of Social Issues

614

317

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Historically, patients who share similar health situations have helped one another to cope with illness by sharing their expertise through participation in patient-led support groups [15], as mentors in pioneering programs such as “Reach to Recovery” [16], and as instructors for chronic disease self-management programs [17]. Although the Internet has facilitated expertise sharing among patients in online health communities, many content analyses of interactions among correspondents of online health communities for conditions such as breast cancer [18-22] focus on emotional support [23].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing the Personal Side of Health: How Patient Expertise Differs from the Expertise of Clinicians

Hartzler¹,

Pratt²

2011

J Med Internet Res

207

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWhen patients need health information to manage their personal health, they turn to both health professionals and other patients. Yet, we know little about how the information exchanged among patients (ie, patient expertise) contrasts with the information offered by health professionals (ie, clinician expertise). Understanding how patients’ experiential expertise contrasts with the medical expertise of health professionals is necessary to inform the design of peer-support tools that meet patients’ needs, particularly with the growing prevalence of largely unguided advice sharing through Internet-based social software.ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to enhance our understanding of patient expertise and to inform the design of peer-support tools. We compared the characteristics of patient expertise with that of clinician expertise for breast cancer.MethodsThrough a comparative content analysis of topics discussed and recommendations offered in Internet message boards and books, we contrasted the topic, form, and style of expertise shared in sources of patient expertise with sources of clinician expertise.ResultsPatient expertise focused on strategies for coping with day-to-day personal health issues gained through trial and error of the lived experience; thus, it was predominately personal in topic. It offered a wealth of actionable advice that was frequently expressed through the narrative style of personal stories about managing responsibilities and activities associated with family, friends, work, and the home during illness. In contrast, clinician expertise was carried through a prescriptive style and focused on explicit facts and opinions that tied closely to the health care delivery system, biomedical research, and health professionals’ work. These differences were significant between sources of patient expertise and sources of clinician expertise in topic (P < .001), form (P < .001), and style (P < .001).ConclusionPatients offer other patients substantial expertise that differs significantly from the expertise offered by health professionals. Our findings suggest that experienced patients do not necessarily serve as “amateur doctors” who offer more accessible but less comprehensive or detailed medical information. Rather, they offer valuable personal information that clinicians cannot necessarily provide. The characteristics of patient expertise and the resulting design implications that we identified will help informaticians enhance the design of peer-support tools that will help meet patients’ diverse information needs.

show abstract

“…Because the event imposes itself graphically on the victim's immediate memory, it is cognitively more &dquo;available&dquo; than less recent or less graphic events; as a consequence, victims reverse their overconfidence bias, and overestimate the probability of future traumatic events (Burdick, 1975). This fallacy is exacerbated by the small-sample heuristic, which causes victims to believe catastrophic events comprise a large proportion of all events, even though they have witnessed only a single occurrence.…”

Section: The Invtclnerability Assumptionmentioning

confidence: 99%