{"title":"Open or closed: Experience of head and neck radiotherapy masks - A mixed-methods study.","authors":"Erik Lundin, Sofia Axelsson, Emma Ohlsson-Nevo","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.825","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In radiotherapy for head and neck cancer, a mask is used to immobilise the head and shoulders. An open mask that does not cover the face is expected to cause less anxiety, but there is need to further investigate the patients' experience of open versus closed masks. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate patient preferences for open or closed masks and whether an open mask can reduce discomfort and anxiety for patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty participants were treated in alternating weeks using open and closed masks. Their distress was evaluated through semi-structured interviews and patient-reported outcome measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When using the open mask, it took longer to position the patient correctly. The closed mask felt more confining and could induce a sense of claustrophobia. Participants employed both internal and external strategies to cope with the stressful situation. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) showed a significant reduction in anxiety over time during the treatment period, but no significant difference between the masks. When participants chose which mask to use for the final treatments, 12 chose the open mask, while 8 chose the closed mask. In addition to the 20 analysed participants, two participants withdrew from the study because they could only tolerate the open mask, one due to anxiety and the other due to swelling.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The open mask seems to provide a less confined experience but may lead to greater difficulties in achieving the correct treatment position. While both masks can be viable options for most patients, some cannot tolerate closed masks but do tolerate open masks.</p>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.825","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: In radiotherapy for head and neck cancer, a mask is used to immobilise the head and shoulders. An open mask that does not cover the face is expected to cause less anxiety, but there is need to further investigate the patients' experience of open versus closed masks. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate patient preferences for open or closed masks and whether an open mask can reduce discomfort and anxiety for patients.
Methods: Twenty participants were treated in alternating weeks using open and closed masks. Their distress was evaluated through semi-structured interviews and patient-reported outcome measures.
Results: When using the open mask, it took longer to position the patient correctly. The closed mask felt more confining and could induce a sense of claustrophobia. Participants employed both internal and external strategies to cope with the stressful situation. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) showed a significant reduction in anxiety over time during the treatment period, but no significant difference between the masks. When participants chose which mask to use for the final treatments, 12 chose the open mask, while 8 chose the closed mask. In addition to the 20 analysed participants, two participants withdrew from the study because they could only tolerate the open mask, one due to anxiety and the other due to swelling.
Conclusions: The open mask seems to provide a less confined experience but may lead to greater difficulties in achieving the correct treatment position. While both masks can be viable options for most patients, some cannot tolerate closed masks but do tolerate open masks.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences (JMRS) is an international and multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal that accepts manuscripts related to medical imaging / diagnostic radiography, radiation therapy, nuclear medicine, medical ultrasound / sonography, and the complementary disciplines of medical physics, radiology, radiation oncology, nursing, psychology and sociology. Manuscripts may take the form of: original articles, review articles, commentary articles, technical evaluations, case series and case studies. JMRS promotes excellence in international medical radiation science by the publication of contemporary and advanced research that encourages the adoption of the best clinical, scientific and educational practices in international communities. JMRS is the official professional journal of the Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy (ASMIRT) and the New Zealand Institute of Medical Radiation Technology (NZIMRT).