Introduction
High burden of psychosocial morbidity among people with haematological cancers
Why is there an interest in support persons?
Challenges associated with delivering psychosocial care for support persons
The internet may be an effective vehicle for delivering psychosocial interventions to support persons
Exploring internet access and intention touse among support persons of haematological cancer patients
Item | Response options |
---|---|
Level of internet access | |
Accessibility | Yes, home; yes, work; yes; other, not at all |
Do you have access to the internet? | |
Accessibility | Available; most of the time, some of the time/rarely, no access |
How would you describe your access to the internet for personal use? | |
Connectivity | None, minor or occasional, major or frequent |
Do you have any problems with access to the internet for personal use? | |
Privacy | Very, moderately, not very |
How private is the location where you use the internet for personal things? | |
Comfort | Very, moderately, not very |
How comfortable is the location where you usually use the internet for personal things? | |
Printing | Yes as much as I like, yes—have to limit the amount, No |
Are you able to print personal information from the internet? | |
Confidence | Very, moderately , not very, never used |
How confident are you in using the internet to find information? | |
Likelihood of using sources of information and support | |
Item 1: Often people who care for others with cancer need information (e.g. about cancer treatments, sources of financial help, or help with practical things like transport). If you needed this kind of information, how likely would you be to use the following sources? | |
Item 2: Often people who care for others with cancer need personal support to cope with feeling down, stressed, anxious, or with trying to stay positive. If you were seeking this kind of help, how likely would you be to use the following types of support? | |
Internet information | Very likely, likely, unsure, unlikely, very unlikely |
Telephone information | |
Printed materials | |
Electronic media | |
Face-to-face information |
Socio-demographic factors may influence variations in accessibility and likelihood of use
Purpose
Method
Design and procedure
Measure
Analysis
Results
Sample
Metropolitan | Regional | Total | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N
| % |
N
| % |
N
| % | Test |
P value | |
Age
| 56.2 | 13.2 | 60.2 | 12.4 | 57.9 | 13.0 |
F(1,177) = 4.31 | 0.039 |
Female
| 75 | 73% | 52 | 68% | 128 | 71% | χ2(1) = 0.507 | 0.476 |
Survivor diagnosis
| ||||||||
Lymphoma | 9 | 9% | 4 | 5% | 13 | 7% | ||
Leukaemia | 29 | 29% | 16 | 21% | 45 | 25% | ||
Myeloma | 16 | 16% | 12 | 16% | 28 | 16% | ||
NHL | 46 | 46% | 46 | 59% | 92 | 52% | χ2(3) = 3.59 | 0.310 |
Relationship to survivor
| ||||||||
Partner | 82 | 80% | 67 | 87% | 149 | 83% | ||
Relative | 20 | 19% | 10 | 13% | 30 | 17% | ||
Other | 1 | 1% | 0 | 0% | 1 | 1% | χ2(2) = 2.13 | 0.344 |
Education
| ||||||||
High school or less | 44 | 43% | 47 | 60% | 91 | 51% | ||
Vocational training | 21 | 21% | 15 | 19% | 36 | 20% | ||
University | 37 | 36% | 16 | 21% | 53 | 29% | χ2(2) = 6.33 | 0.042 |
Employed
| 59 | 61% | 33 | 44% | 92 | 53% | χ2(1) = 4.81 | 0.028 |
Married
| 94 | 91% | 74 | 95% | 168 | 93% | χ2(1) = 0.868 | 0.352 |
Australian born
| 68 | 66% | 55 | 71% | 123 | 68% | χ2(1) = 0.412 | 0.521 |
TOTAL | 103 | 57% | 78 | 43% | 181 |
Proportion with a high level of internet access
Nature of access | Proportion of those with internet access for personal use (N = 142) | |
---|---|---|
N
| % | |
Frequency of access
| ||
Any | 115 | 80 |
Most of time | 24 | 17 |
Connection problems
| ||
None | 85 | 60 |
Minor | 51 | 36 |
Private
| ||
Very | 95 | 67 |
Moderately | 38 | 27 |
Comfortable
| ||
Very | 101 | 71 |
Moderately | 38 | 27 |
Can print personal info
| ||
Any amount | 121 | 86 |
Limited amount | 8 | 6 |
Confident with internet
| ||
Very | 61 | 43 |
Moderately | 58 | 41 |
Access score
a
|
Proportion of all respondents (N = 175) | |
High | 129 | 74 |
Moderate | 10 | 6 |
Low | 3 | 2 |
None | 33 | 19 |
Likelihood of using various sources of information and support
Source | Likelihood of using | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
For information | For Support | |||
Likely/very likely to use | Likely/very likely to use | |||
N
| % (95%CI) |
N
| % (95%CI) | |
Internet | 104 | 59 (52–67)% | 45 | 26 (19–32)% |
Telephone | 95 | 54 (47–62)% | 69 | 39 (32–47)% |
Print | 152 | 87 (82–92)% | 122 | 70 (63–77)% |
Electronic (DVD from Cancer Council, TV programmes, radio) | 104 | 59 (52–67)% | 87 | 50 (42–57)% |
Face-to-face | 140 | 80 (74–86)% | 132 | 75 (69–82)% |
Number of options chosen as likely or very likely
a
| ||||
None | 5 | 3 (0–5)% | 15 | 9 (4–13)% |
Face-to-face onlya
| 7 | 4 (1–7)% | 26 | 15 (10–20)% |
Print onlya
| 4 | 2 (0–5)% | 7 | 4 (1–7)% |
One only | 15 | 9 (4–13)% | 34 | 19 (14–25)% |
Two or more | 155 | 89 (84–93)% | 126 | 72 (65–79)% |
Socio-demographic characteristics of support persons with high levels of internet access and likelihood of using web-based sources of information and support
High or likely mean (SD) or N (%) | Low or unlikely mean (SD) or N (%) | Odds ratio (95%CI) |
P
| |
---|---|---|---|---|
High access (n = 147) | ||||
Age | 55.22 (12.49) | 66.93 (8.22) | 0.89 (0.84–0.94) | <0.001 |
Education | ||||
Schoola
| 52 (71%) | 21 (29%) | ||
Vocational training | 22 (85%) | 4 (15%) | 1.62 (0.45–5.78) | 0.459 |
University degree | 45 (94%) | 3 (6%) | 6.52 (1.65–25.79) | 0.008 |
Likely to use the internet for information (n = 155) | ||||
Age | 53.51 (12.24) | 65.04 (10.04) | 0.91 (0.87–0.94) | <0.001 |
Education | ||||
School* | 39 (52%) | 36 (48%) | ||
Vocational training | 20 (71%) | 8 (29%) | 1.68 (0.6-4.71) | 0.325 |
University degree | 39 (75%) | 13 (25%) | 2.64 (1.11–6.3) | 0.029 |
Likely to use the internet for support (n = 155) | ||||
Age | 50.69 (12.46) | 60.37 (11.85) | 0.94 (0.91–0.97) | <0.001 |
Gender | ||||
Malea
| 7 (14%) | 43 (86%) | ||
Female | 35 (33%) | 70 (67%) | 2.31 (0.9–5.95) | 0.082 |