Article Sidebar
Published:
Jan 24, 2019Article Details
The author(s) retain copyright on work published by AOSIS unless specified otherwise.
Licensing and publication rights
Author(s) of work published by AOSIS are required to grant AOSIS the unlimited rights to publish the definitive work in any format, language and medium, for any lawful purpose. AOSIS requires journal authors to publish their work in open access under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence.
The authors retain the non-exclusive right to do anything they wish with the published article(s), provided attribution is given to the applicable journal with details of the original publication, as set out in the official citation of the article published in the journal. The retained right specifically includes the right to post the article on the authors’ or their institution’s websites or in institutional repositories.
Previously published work may have been published under a different licence. We advise the community that if they would like to reuse the work to consult the applicable licence at article level.
Note: If you need to comply with your funding body policy, you can apply for the CC BY license after your manuscript is accepted for publication.
Main Article Content
Cultural factors that influence the treatment of osteosarcoma in Zulu patients: Healthcare professionals’ perspectives and strategies
Abstract
Purpose: International and national research regarding the discussion of cancer treatment across cultural boundaries is sparse. This study was conducted in the province of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, where healthcare encounters are largely culturally discordant; and this study focused on adult Zulu patients diagnosed with osteosarcoma. The purpose of this research study was to identify the cultural factors associated with discussing the different treatment options – and to explore healthcare professionals’ responses to these cultural factors – from the healthcare professionals’ perspective.
Methods: A qualitative, exploratory, descriptive and contextual research design was used. We conducted focus group interviews with professional nurses, allied health professionals and orthopaedic physicians. These three focus groups comprised a total of 23 participants, and interviews were conducted with each of these groups. We thematically analysed the interview transcripts, using Guba’s model of trustworthiness to ensure rigour.
Results: We found that the factors, influencing treatment discussions in this cross-cultural clinical setting, included the meaning and the disclosure of cultural health beliefs.
We identified strategies for responding to the cultural factors associated with amputation, namely timing treatment discussions, using support services, patient models and DVDs or videos. Strategies for responding to cultural and health beliefs that affect the treatment included initiating the cultural discussion, demonstrating an understanding of patients’ cultural beliefs and liaising with family and cultural decision-makers wherever possible.
Conclusion: Our findings emphasised healthcare professionals’ reports of how patients can experience the discussion of culturally discordant treatment options as bad news. We recommend that the treatment discussion form an integral part of the guidelines for culturally competent communication with such cancer patients.
