1. Objectifs

Intentions :
«In this paper, we report on the key informational components of this novel, brief, population intervention developed with the aim of empowering each of the couple members facing breast cancer, based on existing written information resources. Our two objectives were (a) to identify and describe key information, framed as ‘messages’ to be the basic content of the proposed informational intervention, and (b) to validate the relevance and acceptability of these messages from the perspective of women diagnosed with early breast cancer and of their spouses.» (p. 509)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
L’échantillon est composé de femmes (35) ayant reçu un diagnostic de cancer du sein et de leurs époux (35). Tous et toutes habitaient les villes de Montréal et Québec au moment de l’étude.

Instruments :
Guide d’entretien semi-directif

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse de contenu

3. Résumé

«[P]articipants endorsed the idea of being guided and helped in their adjustment to breast cancer, and their assessments of the messages most useful to them were similar. Participants also identified areas for improvement in terms of the wording of certain messages judged too simplistic and the message format which provoked some irritation. The content of these messages could provide a solid basis for a novel, low-cost, population-based informational intervention for women and spouses facing breast cancer. […] Our findings also point to the potential clinical relevance of certain messages. First, the apparent reluctance of some spouses in reaction to the message about sharing their own thoughts, feelings and needs with their partner is a phenomenon that is often encountered in the clinical setting. This may constitute ‘protective buffering’, where the spouse hides worries or denies concerns in an effort to reduce his partner’s upset and burden and avoid disagreement. […] Secondly, the strong reaction of a number of participants to the message suggesting that sexuality might be affected by the illness—which they considered much too weak—confirms what is recognized clinically; namely, that sexuality is rarely discussed in the regular treatment setting even though it is a well-documented need of couples.» (p. 516-517)