Ussher, J. M.

Background: Empathic and informative interactions with health professionals are important for the well-being of people with cancer. However, there is a dearth of research examining the construction and experience of interactions with health professionals from the perspective of informal cancer carers.

Women cancer carers have consistently been found to report higher levels of distress than men carers. However, there is little understanding of the mechanisms underlying these gender differences in distress, and a neglect of rewarding aspects of care. We conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with 53 informal cancer carers, 34 women and 19 men, to examine difficult and rewarding aspects of cancer care. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the transcripts.

There is a growing body of research showing that cancer impacts upon the sexuality of informal carers in a couple relationship with a person with cancer. However, this research is primarily focused on partners of a person with gynaecological or breast cancer, within a framework where the physiological effects of cancer on sexual performance are the focus. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 informal carers in a couple relationship with a person with cancer, across a range of cancer types.

The experience and construction of caring in 50 informal cancer carers, 35 women and 15 men, was examined using a critical realist approach and a mixed method design. Women reported higher rates of depression, anxiety, unmet needs and burden of care than men. No gender differences were found in time spent care-giving, suggesting that gendered roles are implicated in distress and coping. Semi-structured interviews with 13 carers were used to identify gender differences in caring, analysed using positioning theory.

Recognition that informal cancer carers experience unmet needs and psychological distress has led to the development of a range of psycho-social interventions. The efficacy of such interventions is examined through a systematic review of the research literature, following National Health and Medical Research Council and Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. Of 13 level II randomised controlled trials (RCTs), only eight showed significant differences across groups, with moderate effect size.