As the field gathers momentum and seeks new ways to measure and manage treatment-related time, we should remain attentive to the broad range of meaning patients and caregivers ascribe to healthcare time.
Thanks to participants, supervisors, and collaborators for their help with this works
7/7
This paper gently pushes back on the idea that time in cancer care is uniformly “toxic » and questions the language used to describe it. Treatment decisions are negotiated, contextual, and deeply value-laden 6/7
Participants suggested alternatives: time commitment, time investment, time trade-off, time burden, or time cost.
5/7
Many patients and caregivers felt the use of the term “toxicity” was negatively value-laden & often not representative of their experiences. Oncologists were more likely to support the term, seeing it as a helpful reminder of an under-recognised burden and provocation to push systems to improve 4/7
🗣️ In a qualitative study just published in JCO Oncology Practice, we asked 45 stakeholders–patients, caregivers and oncologists–from metro and regional Australia what they thought of the term. Their responses were strikingly divergent.
3/7
🕰️ The term “time toxicity” has gained traction in oncology and the lay press, capturing a potential treatment burden that has long been hiding in plain sight: patients’ time. But not all time spent in treatment is experienced as “toxic.”
2/7
⁉️ Sharing a new paper from our team: Stakeholder Perspectives on the Term “Time Toxicity”
📎 Link here: lnkd.in/gFaeXGrW
1/7
Same quality of life, same length of life, same control of cancer long-term, half the serious side-effects, one-third the time on treatment and $150 million per annum saving for the taxpayer? Sounds like a great idea for a confirmatory phase IV clinical trial in Australia!
