Exploring Cancer Treatment Experiences for Patients With Preexisting Mobility Disability.
Nicole D Agaronnik, Areej El-Jawahri, Kristi Kirschner and 1 others
PMID 33065580WHAT IT FOUND
Patients with pre-existing mobility disability reported that prior negative healthcare experiences and fears of losing function drove them to refuse or alter cancer treatments.
They also faced inaccessible equipment and staff who lacked disability-specific knowledge, leading to unmet basic needs.
Key findings
01Prior negative healthcare experiences and fear of surgery influenced cancer treatment decisions, with some patients opting for less invasive options.
02Both patients and physicians avoided or altered treatments due to concerns that cancer therapy would exacerbate existing functional impairments.
03Patients encountered physical barriers like inaccessible radiation tables and hospital rooms, and attitudinal barriers from staff who lacked disability knowledge.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study used opt-in recruitment, which may have biased the sample toward patients who were more dissatisfied with their care or more motivated to voice concerns. Findings may not generalize to patients with different combinations of disability and cancer types, or to those with very complex disabilities who may have declined participation. The study relied on self-reported medical history without verification through records. The sample was limited to 20 participants, though data saturation was reported.
Declared interests
The authors reported no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (N.I.H., Extramural).
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret these themes as evidence that cancer treatment inherently worsens function in this population. The study reports patient perceptions and experiences, not objective outcomes, and does not establish that disability-specific accommodations were ineffective or that less aggressive treatment was clinically inappropriate.