title: Concerns, affect, and cognitive disruption following completion of radiation treatment for localized breast or prostate cancer.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To describe concerns, cognitive disruption, and affect following the completion of radiation treatment (RT) for localized breast or prostate cancer.
  
  
  METHODS
  Cross-sectional, descriptive.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two RT centers associated with a university hospital.
  
  
  METHODS
  Patients who completed RT for prostate (n = 9) or breast cancer (n = 11). The mean age of the sample is 64 years. Ninety percent are Caucasian, 80% are married, 50% are of Latter-day Saint faith, and 50% are retired. All had early stage disease, with a mean of 20 months post-RT.
  
  
  METHODS
  One-time interview using qualitative methods and the Life Orientation Test, Revised Impact of Events Scale, state scale of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, satisfaction items of the Sarason Social Support Questionnaire, and Side Effect Severity Checklist.
  
  
  METHODS
  Frequency of intrusive thoughts or avoidant behavior, positive and negative affect, dispositional optimism, satisfaction with social support, severity of side effects, and themes extracted from semistructured interviews.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Most subjects had unexpected intrusive thoughts about cancer; more than one-third avoided reminders of cancer. The level of positive affect was high, as was optimism. The level of negative affect was low. Subjects' satisfaction level with social support was high. Fatigue was the most frequently reported continuing side effect. Relative optimism, acceptance, vigilance, and trust of healthcare providers were major themes. Avoidance, comparison, maintaining normalcy, and information seeking were common coping strategies.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Subjects perceived themselves to be doing well. Fatigue was the most common long-term side effect. Subjects continued to seek information. Symptom vigilance and interpretation were important, as were having a positive outlook and maintaining normalcy.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Nurses must acknowledge the potential for concerns about symptoms and continuing side effects and what they mean for the patient. Clinicians need to provide accurate information about common post-treatment experiences. Clinicians also must remember that subjects have vivid recollections of both positive and negative interactions with healthcare providers.
authors.affiliation: University of Utah College of Nursing, Salt Lake City, USA.
authors.forename: B L
authors.initials: BL
authors.lastname: Walker
authors.forename: L M
authors.initials: LM
authors.lastname: Nail
authors.forename: L
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Larsen
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Magill
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Schwartz
mesh_terms: D000223:Adaptation, Psychological; D000328:Adult; D000339:Affect; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001362:Avoidance Learning; D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000523:psychology* / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D003071:Cognition; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D015404:Nursing Methodology Research; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000523:psychology* / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D012944:Social Support; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires