Exploring the experiences and priorities of women with a diagnosis of ovarian cancer

Purpose Ovarian cancer is the third most common gynaecological cancer among women, yet remains under-researched. Past studies suggest that women who present with ovarian cancer have more supportive care needs compared to women experiencing other gynaecological cancers. This study explores the experi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Supportive care in cancer 2023-07, Vol.31 (7), p.432-432, Article 432
Hauptverfasser: Pasvanis, Maree, Hegarty, Sue, Russell, Hayley, Peate, Michelle, Marino, Jennifer L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose Ovarian cancer is the third most common gynaecological cancer among women, yet remains under-researched. Past studies suggest that women who present with ovarian cancer have more supportive care needs compared to women experiencing other gynaecological cancers. This study explores the experiences and priorities of women with a diagnosis of ovarian cancer and whether age may influence these needs and experiences. Methods Participants were recruited by a community organization, Ovarian Cancer Australia (OCA), via a social media campaign promoted on Facebook. Participants were asked to rank priorities around living with ovarian cancer, and to endorse which supports and resources they had used to address those priorities. Distributions of priority rankings and resource use were compared by age (19-49 vs. 50+ years). Results Two hundred and eighty-eight people completed the consumer survey and most respondents were 60-69 years (33.7%). Priorities did not vary by age. Fear of cancer recurrence was identified by 51% respondents as the most challenging aspect of having ovarian cancer. Compared with older respondents, a higher proportion of young participants were more inclined to use a mobile app version of the OCA resilience kit (25.8% vs 45.1%, p =0.002) and expressed interest in using a fertility preservation decision aid (2.4% vs 25%, p
ISSN:0941-4355
1433-7339
DOI:10.1007/s00520-023-07903-3