Zusammenfassung
Hintergrund
Beim lokal begrenzten Prostatakarzinom ergibt sich die individuell „richtige“ Therapieentscheidung häufig nicht allein aus der medizinischen Konstellation. Hier ist der Austausch mit dem sozialen Umfeld von besonderer Bedeutung. Internetforen bieten eine hervorragende Möglichkeit, diese Kommunikation genauer kennenzulernen.
Material und Methoden
Wir untersuchten 82 thematisch einschlägige Threads und damit 5% des größten deutschsprachigen Onlineforums zur Prostatakrebs Selbsthilfe (http://forum.prostatakrebs-bps.de). In Anlehnung an Methoden der „grounded theory“ sowie der linguistischen Gesprächsanalyse werteten zwei der Autoren unabhängig voneinander die gesamte Stichprobe interpretativ aus.
Ergebnisse
Die um Hilfestellung gebetenen User schildern persönliche Erfahrungen und leiten daraus eine subjektive Empfehlung ab. Zugleich ist der Betroffene angehalten, die Ratschläge zu gewichten und selbst zu entscheiden. Im Forum aktive Urologen erscheinen als wichtiges Korrektiv, jedoch wird ihr Engagement recht unterschiedlich bewertet. Überwiegend diskutieren medizinische Laien mit sehr variablem Kenntnisstand, weshalb tentative Kommunikationsstrategien Verwendung finden. Die Erkrankung erscheint insgesamt sprachlich tabuisiert. Neben Behandlungsempfehlungen spielt v. a. die emotionale Unterstützung eine sehr große Rolle. Auf der gemeinsamen Basis persönlicher Betroffenheit entsteht ein Wir-Gefühl, das den Austausch im Onlineforum für viele User besonders wertvoll macht.
Schlussfolgerung
Onlineforen ermöglichen einen regen Austausch zwischen Betroffenen, der zugleich Information, Ratschläge und emotionale Unterstützung vermittelt. Die Kenntnis solcher Onlineangebote ist hilfreich, um weiterhin eine gute Beratung unserer Patienten zu gewährleisten.
Abstract
Background
In localized prostate cancer individual treatment decisions cannot be reached relying exclusively on medical data. Therefore, social interaction is of considerable importance and online support groups allow us to get to know a facet of this communication.
Material and methods
We investigated 82 thematically relevant threads representing 5% of the largest German online support group on prostate cancer (http://forum.prostatakrebs-bps.de). Two independent investigators used methods derived from grounded theory and linguistic conversation analysis to characterize the sample.
Results
Users report on personal experience and provide subjective recommendations. At the same time those seeking advice are encouraged to weigh the information and to decide for themselves. Some urologists contribute to the discussion and seem to have a corrective influence, but their involvement is judged diversely. As mainly lay people with different levels of knowledge are involved in the discussion, a tentative language style is frequently used. The disease itself appears to be a linguistic taboo. Besides treatment recommendations, emotional support is of major concern. Being personally affected establishes a sense of unity, which adds to the subjective value of the communication.
Conclusions
Patients readily receive information, advice and emotional support in online support groups. Knowledge of such online services is useful in ensuring good counselling for our patients.
Literatur
Arrington MI, Grant CH, Vanderford ML (2005) Man to man and side by side, they cope with prostate cancer: self-help and social support. J Psychosoc Oncol 23:81–102
Blommaert J (2005) Discourse. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Broom A (2005) Virtually he@lthy: the impact of internet use on disease experience and the doctor-patient relationship. Qual Health Res 15:325–345
Chapman K, Abraham C, Jenkins V et al (2003) Lay understanding of terms used in cancer consultations. Psychooncology 12:557–566
Davison BJ, Keyes M, Elliott S et al (2004) Preferences for sexual information resources in patients treated for early-stage prostate cancer with either radical prostatectomy or brachytherapy. BJU Int 93:965–969
Eysenbach G, Powell J, Englesakis M et al (2004) Health related virtual communities and electronic support groups: systematic review of the effects of online peer to peer interactions. BMJ 328:1166
Fang F, Keating NL, Mucci LA et al (2010) Immediate risk of suicide and cardiovascular death after a prostate cancer diagnosis: cohort study in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 102:307–314
Galinsky MJ, Schopler JH (1994) Negative experiences in support groups. Soc Work Health Care 20:77–95
Gillitzer R, Hampel C, Thomas C et al (2009) Bevorzugte Behandlungsoptionen des lokalisierten Prostatakarzinoms von deutschen Urologen und Radioonkologen bei eigener Erkrankung. Urologe 48:399–407
Glaser B, Strauss A (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine, Chicago
Gooden RJ, Winefield HR (2007) Breast and prostate cancer online discussion boards: a thematic analysis of gender differences and similarities. J Health Psychol 12:103–114
Gottlieb B, Wachala E (2007) Cancer support groups: a critical review of empirical studies. Psychooncology 16:379–400
Gray RE, Fitch M, Phillips C et al (2000) To tell or not to tell: patterns of disclosure among men with prostate cancer. Psychooncology 9:273–282
Gwede CK, Pow-Sang J, Seigne J et al (2005) Treatment decision-making strategies and influences in patients with localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 104:1381–1390
Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M et al (2008) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 53:68–80
Hellawell GO, Turner KJ, Le Monnier KJ et al (2000) Urology and the Internet: an evaluation of internet use by urology patients and of information available on urological topics. BJU Int 86:191–194
Hellenthal N, Ellison L (2008) How patients make treatment choices. Nat Clin Pract Urol 5:426–433
Huber J, Herpel E, Autschbach F et al (2010) Collection of biospecimen resources for cancer research: ethical framework and acceptance from the patients‘ point of view. In: Dabrock P, Taupitz J, Ried J (eds) Trust in biobanking. Dealing with ethical, legal and social issues in an emerging field of biotechnology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York
Huber J, Ihrig A, Peters T et al (2010) Decision-making in localised prostate cancer: lessons learned from an online support group. BJU Int (in press)
Klemm P (2008) Late effects of treatment for long-term cancer survivors: qualitative analysis of an online support group. Comput inform nurs 26:49–58
Koch P, Oesterreicher W (1994) Schriftlichkeit und Sprache. In: Günther H, Ludwig O (Hrsg) An interdisciplinary handbook of international research. de Gruyter, New York, pp 587–604
Kummervold PE, Chronaki CE, Lausen B et al (2008) eHealth trends in Europe 2005–2007: a population-based survey. J Med Internet Res 10:42
Lorenzato M, Rey D, Durlach A et al (2004) DNA image cytometry on biopsies can help the detection of localized Gleason 3+3 prostate cancers. J Urol 172:1311–1313
Macvean ML, White VM, Sanson-Fisher R (2008) One-to-one volunteer support programs for people with cancer: a review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns 70:10–24
Owen JE, Klapow JC, Roth DL et al (2004) Use of the internet for information and support: disclosure among persons with breast and prostate cancer. J Behav Med 27:491–505
Rozmovits L, Ziebland S (2004) What do patients with prostate or breast cancer want from an Internet site? A qualitative study of information needs. Patient Educ Couns 53:57–64
Seale C, Ziebland S, Charteris-Black J (2006) Gender, cancer experience and internet use: a comparative keyword analysis of interviews and online cancer support groups. Soc Sci Med 62:2577–2590
Steginga SK, Smith DP, Pinnock C et al (2007) Clinicians‘ attitudes to prostate cancer peer-support groups. BJU Int 99:68–71
Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G et al (2007) Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol 177:2106–2131
Van Uden-Kraan CF, Drossaert CHC, Taal E et al (2008) Self-reported differences in empowerment between lurkers and posters in online patient support groups. J Med Internet Res 10:18
Interessenkonflikt
Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Huber, J., Peters, T., Kessler, A. et al. Selbsthilfe im Onlineforum bei lokal begrenztem Prostatakarzinom. Urologe 49, 1377–1384 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-010-2363-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-010-2363-z