• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

“好结果”的复杂化:结直肠癌筛查未发现癌症时的叙述。

Complicating "the good result": narratives of colorectal cancer screening when cancer is not found.

机构信息

a Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine , St. Louis , Missouri , USA.

b Department of Anthropology, Washington College , Chestertown , Maryland , USA.

出版信息

J Psychosoc Oncol. 2019 Jul-Aug;37(4):509-525. doi: 10.1080/07347332.2018.1563581. Epub 2019 Feb 4.

DOI:10.1080/07347332.2018.1563581
PMID:30714858
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6529260/
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

In this paper, we analyze narratives from a Photovoice project on colorectal cancer screening that was carried out with people who had undergone screening and were found to not have cancer.

METHODS

Three groups, totaling eighteen participants, took part in the project, meeting multiple times over the course of approximately 10 weeks, and discussing photos they took about colorectal cancer screening.

RESULTS

A common way in which the participants conveyed their screening experiences was through reflection on their own or other people's illnesses. Our findings highlight the multiple meanings of receiving a "good" or noncancerous screening result after undergoing cancer screening.

CONCLUSION

Such findings suggest that framing noncancerous results only in terms of relief or other positive emotions may ignore the realities people and their families face and their remaining concerns. This paper has broader implications for policies to reduce cancer disparities as well as public health and patient-provider communication about screening.

摘要

目的

在本文中,我们分析了一项大肠癌筛查摄影活动的叙事内容,该活动针对的是已接受筛查且结果无癌症的人群。

方法

该项目共有三组参与者,总计 18 人,他们多次会面,历时约 10 周,讨论他们拍摄的与大肠癌筛查相关的照片。

结果

参与者传达其筛查经历的一种常见方式是反思自己或他人的疾病。我们的研究结果突出表明,在接受癌症筛查后收到“良好”或非癌性筛查结果有多种含义。

结论

这些发现表明,将非癌性结果仅解释为缓解或其他积极情绪,可能会忽略人们及其家人所面临的现实和他们仍然存在的担忧。本文对减少癌症差异的政策以及有关筛查的公共卫生和医患沟通具有更广泛的意义。

相似文献

1
Complicating "the good result": narratives of colorectal cancer screening when cancer is not found.“好结果”的复杂化:结直肠癌筛查未发现癌症时的叙述。
J Psychosoc Oncol. 2019 Jul-Aug;37(4):509-525. doi: 10.1080/07347332.2018.1563581. Epub 2019 Feb 4.
2
Narratives that address affective forecasting errors reduce perceived barriers to colorectal cancer screening.叙述性信息可以减少对大肠癌筛查的情感预测错误,降低感知障碍。
Soc Sci Med. 2010 Jul;71(1):45-52. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.02.038. Epub 2010 Mar 21.
3
A Personalized Approach of Patient-Health Care Provider Communication Regarding Colorectal Cancer Screening Options.关于结直肠癌筛查选择的医患沟通的个性化方法。
Med Decis Making. 2018 Jul;38(5):601-613. doi: 10.1177/0272989X18763802. Epub 2018 Apr 3.
4
Supplementing factual information with patient narratives in the cancer screening context: a qualitative study of acceptability and preferences.在癌症筛查背景下用患者叙述补充事实信息:一项关于可接受性和偏好的定性研究
Health Expect. 2015 Dec;18(6):2032-41. doi: 10.1111/hex.12357. Epub 2015 Mar 1.
5
How narratives influence colorectal cancer screening decision making and uptake: A realist review.叙事如何影响结直肠癌筛查决策和参与:一个现实主义综述。
Health Expect. 2019 Jun;22(3):327-337. doi: 10.1111/hex.12892. Epub 2019 Apr 25.
6
Understanding Patients' Experiences of Diagnosis and Treatment of Advanced Colorectal Cancer in a Safety-Net Hospital System: A Qualitative Study.理解安全网医院系统中晚期结直肠癌诊断和治疗的患者体验:一项定性研究。
Dis Colon Rectum. 2018 Apr;61(4):504-513. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000967.
7
Communication quality predicts patients' colorectal cancer screening behavior.沟通质量可预测患者的结直肠癌筛查行为。
Soc Sci Med. 2024 Oct;358:117199. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117199. Epub 2024 Aug 8.
8
Improving Adherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Intervention to Compare Screener vs. Survivor Narratives.提高结直肠癌筛查依从性:一项比较筛查者与幸存者叙述的随机干预研究。
J Health Commun. 2019;24(2):141-155. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2019.1587109. Epub 2019 Mar 29.
9
Psychosocial consequences of receiving false-positive colorectal cancer screening results: a qualitative study.接受结直肠癌症筛查假阳性结果的心理社会后果:一项定性研究。
Scand J Prim Health Care. 2019 Jun;37(2):145-154. doi: 10.1080/02813432.2019.1608040. Epub 2019 May 11.
10
Questionnaire Validation of Colorectal Cancer Literacy Scale among Thai People in Northeastern Thailand.泰国东北部人群结直肠癌知识量表的问卷效度验证
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2019 Feb 26;20(2):645-651. doi: 10.31557/APJCP.2019.20.2.645.

引用本文的文献

1
Inequities in childhood cancer research: A scoping review.儿童癌症研究中的不平等:一项范围综述。
EJC Paediatr Oncol. 2024 Dec;4. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcped.2024.100171. Epub 2024 Jun 18.
2
The adult in the room: The push and pull of parental involvement in research with children.房间里的成年人:父母参与儿童研究的利弊权衡
Childhood. 2023 Aug;30(3):317-333. doi: 10.1177/09075682231176899. Epub 2023 May 25.
3
Distance and Transportation Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Rural Community.农村社区结直肠癌筛查的距离和交通障碍。
J Prim Care Community Health. 2023 Jan-Dec;14:21501319221147126. doi: 10.1177/21501319221147126.
4
Qualitative Research Methods in Chronic Disease: Introduction and Opportunities to Promote Health Equity.慢性病定性研究方法:介绍及促进健康公平的机遇。
Annu Rev Public Health. 2022 Apr 5;43:37-57. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-012420-105104. Epub 2021 Dec 22.

本文引用的文献

1
Barriers to Follow-up Colonoscopies for Patients With Positive Results From Fecal Immunochemical Tests During Colorectal Cancer Screening.结直肠癌筛查中粪便免疫化学试验阳性患者行结肠镜随访的障碍。
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Feb;17(3):469-476. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.05.022. Epub 2018 May 29.
2
Formative Research on Knowledge and Preferences for Stool-based Tests compared to Colonoscopy: What Patients and Providers Think.基于粪便的检测与结肠镜检查相比的知识和偏好的形成性研究:患者和提供者的想法。
J Community Health. 2018 Dec;43(6):1085-1092. doi: 10.1007/s10900-018-0525-x.
3
Timely follow-up of positive cancer screening results: A systematic review and recommendations from the PROSPR Consortium.及时随访癌症筛查阳性结果:PROSPR 联盟的系统评价和建议。
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 May;68(3):199-216. doi: 10.3322/caac.21452. Epub 2018 Mar 30.
4
Colon cancer survival in the United States by race and stage (2001-2009): Findings from the CONCORD-2 study.2001 - 2009年美国按种族和分期划分的结肠癌生存率:CONCORD - 2研究结果
Cancer. 2017 Dec 15;123 Suppl 24(Suppl 24):5014-5036. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31076.
5
Contribution of patient, physician, and environmental factors to demographic and health variation in colonoscopy follow-up for abnormal colorectal cancer screening test results.患者、医生及环境因素对结直肠癌筛查异常结果结肠镜随访中人口统计学及健康差异的影响。
Cancer. 2017 Sep 15;123(18):3502-3512. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30765. Epub 2017 May 11.
6
The Future of the Affordable Care Act and Insurance Coverage.《平价医疗法案》与保险覆盖范围的未来
Am J Public Health. 2017 Apr;107(4):538-540. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.303665. Epub 2017 Feb 16.
7
Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Racially Diverse Population Served by a Safety-Net Clinic.安全网诊所服务的种族多样化人群中结直肠癌筛查的障碍
J Community Health. 2017 Aug;42(4):791-796. doi: 10.1007/s10900-017-0319-6.
8
Trends and Patterns of Disparities in Cancer Mortality Among US Counties, 1980-2014.1980 - 2014年美国各县癌症死亡率差异的趋势与模式
JAMA. 2017 Jan 24;317(4):388-406. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.20324.
9
Assessing Colorectal Cancer Screening Barriers by Two Methods.通过两种方法评估结直肠癌筛查障碍。
J Cancer Educ. 2018 Jun;33(3):536-543. doi: 10.1007/s13187-016-1148-5.
10
Beyond Adherence: Health Care Disparities and the Struggle to Get Screened for Colon Cancer.超越依从性:医疗保健差异与结肠癌筛查之艰难
Qual Health Res. 2016 Jan;26(1):17-31. doi: 10.1177/1049732315593549. Epub 2015 Jul 9.