Self-Reliance, Social Norms, and Self-Stigma as Barriers to Psychosocial Help Seeking Among Rural Cancer Survivors with Cancer-Related Distress

Introduction

Cancer survivors from rural areas experience high-levels of cancer-related distress (CRD; the multifactorial, unpleasant, emotional experience that interferes with their ability to cope with cancer, treatment, and symptoms effectively). As recently as 10 years ago, fewer than 10% of all individuals with cancer were being screened for CRD, but with wider adoption of screening tools, such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer and Problem List (Holland et al., 2013), individuals with cancer are now being screened at higher rates, above 70% in some cases (Carlson et al., 2020; Skaczkowski et al., 2018, 2020). Unfortunately, despite this high rate of screening, difficultly connecting rural survivors with psychosocial support persists. In fact, rates of successful referral of rural survivors to psychosocial services remains low (Bauwens et al., 2014; Funk et al., 2016; Opie et al., 2017), leaving rural survivors highly vulnerable to a range of negative sequelae of unmet needs including a higher risk of suicide (DeGuzman et al., 2017; Deleemans et al., 2020; Hubbard et al., 2015; Tzelepis et al., 2018).

Distance to care is well-accepted as a significant factor in rural survivors’ reluctance to receive referral for further psychosocial care (Andrykowski & Burris, 2010; Opie et al., 2017; Pesut et al., 2010). Yet, it fails to fully explain survivors’ unwillingness to receive psychosocial care when distance barriers can be successfully be overcome via technology. For example, we conducted a telemedicine-delivered intervention with rural cancer survivors to screen for CRD and make referrals for lingering post-treatment unmet needs. The intervention, Comprehensive Assistance: Rural, Nursing and Guidance (CARING) was designed to overcome technology barriers experienced by many living in broadband-poor areas, offering options for survivors without home-based internet access to connect to an oncology-specialized nurse (DeGuzman et al., 2020, 2021). Participants (n = 14) who were found to have high CRD (through a combination of self-identification and nursing assessment) related to a psychosocial issue were referred for psychosocial support (e.g., oncology-specialized social worker [SW] from the Cancer Center). SWs at the Cancer Center where the study took place initially contact patients by phone to discuss the range of support options available, including telephone counseling and finding resources in their area such as support groups. However, despite this direct contact, fewer than one-third (i.e., 28.6%) of the 14 accepted the referral for further psychosocial care (DeGuzman et al., 2020, 2021).

Given this low acceptance of psychosocial services, even when distance barriers were removed, there is need to better understand the psychological reasons why referrals are rejected in order to better develop interventions to increase acceptance. However, only one study has directly examined rural cancer survivors’ reasons for not seeking psychosocial services. In this study, rural cancer survivors reported that speaking with a psychologist or using a support group to deal with psychosocial issues is not an accepted social norm, suggesting that relying on those within their own personal circle is more acceptable than utilizing professional care to deal with non-physical issues that arise from cancer treatment (Andrykowski & Burris, 2010). Other studies on help seeking in rural settings have also noted the high value that is placed on self-reliance and privacy (Fennell et al., 2018). Men in the study also reported a desire to minimize or normalize the problem, and to have emotional control. Research has also suggested that stigma may be a barrier within rural communities, as seeking help is viewed as a sign of personal weakness (Fuller et al., 2000), and that rural women are afraid to ask for help with mental health issues because of stigma (Snell-Rood et al., 2017). Specifically, higher rates of perceived public stigma (i.e. the perception that others view those who seek help for mental health concerns as “weak” or “crazy”; Vogel et al., 2009) and self-stigma (i.e., the perception of oneself as being inferior or a failure if seeking help with a mental health concern; Vogel et al., 2006) have been shown to exist in rural populations (Schroeder et al., 2021; Stewart et al., 2015). However, despite these important findings, this past research is largely limited to individuals not currently experiencing distress or who are asked to respond to a hypothetical situation. Research has not focused on individuals currently experiencing distress Swho are offered services. Given our research with rural cancer survivors, where we found that only 28.6% of rural survivors with high CRD accepted a referral for psychosocial care (DeGuzman et al., 2021), the purpose of this research was to directly examine the reasons rural cancer survivors did not accept a psychosocial referral.

Methods

We utilized a qualitative descriptive design to accomplish the study purpose (Sandelowski, 2000). Six weeks following the CARING study, post-intervention interviews were originally conducted with participants. For the present analysis, we evaluated data from the interviews of the 14 participants to whom the nurse had offered a psychosocial referral. Of the 14, four had accepted the referral and 10 had declined (DeGuzman et al., 2021). The 10 who declined a referral during the intervention were asked about their reasons for declining. The 4 participants who had accepted the referral during the intervention were asked if they had yet heard from the referring provider and if the process had moved forward. For the current study, we analyzed data from the 14 original post-intervention interviews, and attempted to re-contact each participant for a second interview 9 months after the conclusion of the intervention, targeting a more in-depth understanding of their perspectives on the barriers to their acceptance of a psychosocial referral.

Interview questions for this second interview were drawn from validated instruments designed to understand individual’s reasons for not accepting or following through on the referral. Specifically, participants were asked if their decision to accept or not accept a referral was related to self-reliance (i.e., feelings of not being able to take care of one’s own problems; Fennell et al., 2018); public stigma related to seeking mental health [i.e., (a) “others viewing them negatively or in a less favorable light”; (b) “others thinking bad things about them”; or (c) “others seeing them as seriously disturbed or thinking they posed a risk to others”]; and self-stigma related to seeking mental health [i.e., if accepting a psychosocial referral would impact them feeling (a) “inadequate,” (b) “inferior,” (c) or “less satisfied with themselves”] (Vogel et al., 2006, 2009). For the 4 participants who had originally accepted a referral, we also sought to determine if they had met with the Cancer Center SW or other psychosocial care providers.

We used a deductive, iterative approach to coding the data, guided by qualitative content methods (Sandelowski, 2000). We categorized data into known barriers to mental health care in rural populations. Categories were developed into themes; categories and themes were discussed among members of the research team to obtain consensus. The Institutional Review Board for Health Research at the University of Virginia approved the study. Verbal consent was obtained from all participants.

Results

In addition to analyzing the data from the 14 post-intervention interviews and were able to successfully re-contact 6 of the original 14 for long-term follow-up. Two had passed away since the intervention and we were unable to reach the remaining 6. Of the 6 survivors that we recontacted, 2 of the female participants had originally accepted a referral for an oncology-specialized social worker from the Cancer Center, but when the SW contacted them, neither had followed through with receiving further assistance.

Table 1 presents demographics for the 14 participants. The sample was equally split among male and female, with an average age of 62. The majority were white, non-Hispanic, and the most common cancer was squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity. Over 85% of participants had cancer that had not spread to lymph nodes or metastasized elsewhere. The mean distress score was 5.8/10.

We ultimately extracted three themes from the data: Minimization and Self-Reliance; Preference for Use of Informal Support; and Self-Stigma for Some, but no Public Stigma.

Discussion

Despite high levels of CRD and recommendations from an oncology-specialized nurse, none of the participants in our study – not even those who had originally agreed to accept a referral—ultimately used the Cancer Center’s psychosocial resources. When explaining their views toward not accepting help, survivors tended to minimize their experiences of distress while emphasizing self-reliance and a desire to only speak to close family and occasionally friends. Research has found similar phenomena in rural populations. For example, previous work with cancer survivors has shown a desire to relying on family and friends to deal with psychosocial issues (Andrykowski & Burris, 2010). Several studies have also found self-reliance and problem-minimization as barriers to seeking mental health treatment for rural populations (Fennell et al., 2018; Judd et al., 2006; Komiti et al., 2006; Snell-Rood et al., 2017). Similarly, a qualitative study with psychosocial care providers serving a rural Australian region, reported that participants noted that the distress of residents of their region had to rise to a very serious threshold before residents would even acknowledge its existence (Fuller et al., 2000). Taken together with our results, this suggests that the social norms of self-reliance and desire to not share personal information with someone from outside the survivors’ immediate circle, may be key contributing factors, as well as important intervention points to address, to not seeking help for psychological distress among rural cancer survivors. This might be particularly important, as prior research indicates that limiting mental healthcare to discussions with family and friends is insufficient to address the profound distress that survivors experience, and that those who elect to seek professional care find it highly impactful (Gunn et al., 2013).

While consistent with past research (Fennell et al., 2018), both male and female survivors in our study emphasized positive thinking, self-reliance, and minimization of distress, our findings also suggested some potential differences in the approach to addressing barriers to care for men and women. Specifically, men in our study reported a smaller circle of trust, which typically just included their wives. Consistent with this, a study of 409 rural Australian men and women found that rural men reported more barriers to seeking mental health care than women. Other work has also found that certain norms such as a desire for stoicism and emotional control to be a stronger barrier to help-seeking for rural men than women (Fennell et al., 2018; Judd et al., 2006). As such, since rural women are more likely to seek mental healthcare than rural men (Judd et al., 2006; Wrigley et al., 2005), approaches to overcome barriers in rural male cancer survivors may benefit from examining gender-focused interventions. For example, our results may suggest that a dyadic intervention that includes their spouse or caregiver may be particularly salient for men.

The current results are consistent with some assertions that stigma is a moderately important barrier to help seeking, reported by approximately a quarter to one-third of participants across multiple research studies (Clement et al., 2015). Interestingly, while stigma is the most cited barrier to seeking help, rural cancer survivors in our study did not report public stigma associated with seeking help for CRD as a barrier to accepting a referral. None of the six individuals we re-contacted reported that others would view them negatively if they were to seek help from the Cancer Center SW. In turn, self-stigma associated seeking psychosocial services was found to be a limiting factor from accepting a psychosocial referral, at least for some participants. One possible explanation for this is that the cancer experience is viewed by others as sufficiently debilitating physically and emotionally, that it is considered warranting emotional support for others, but still does not rise to the level of warranting breaking social norms oneself. One of our participants referred specifically to this, stating that she tried not to view others that way, but viewed herself more critically. This finding is also consistent with most research showing that self-stigma is a more salient barrier to seeking help than public stigma in general populations (Vogel et al., 2007) and with the research on rural communities regarding the presence of self-stigma (i.e., seeking help is viewed as a sign of personal weakness; Fuller et al., 2000; Vogel et al., 2006). As such, self-stigma may be an important barrier for those who endorse it, and not salient for everyone.

Alternatively, it may be that stigma is an important factor that influences other factors and thus its systemic effects may not always be noticeable (Clement et al., 2012). Others have also suggested that stigma is part of interrelated network of barriers (Schomerus & Angermeyer, 2008). For example, Jennings and colleagues examined a model in which public stigma was linked to attitudes towards seeking professional services through self-stigma and then self-reliance (Jennings et al., 2015). In other words, self-stigma and self-reliance were mediators and thus more proximal to decisions to seek help (and thus may be more accessible to participants’ awareness). This finding is consistent with the current findings where potential mediating factor such as self-reliance and desire to only disclose to close others were widely endorsed and stigma factors less so. Thus, similar to Jennings et al., we encourage future researchers and clinicians continue to examine the complex relationships between the different types of stigma and other factors such as self-reliance in order to be able to develop more focused interventions to increase use of services by those who could benefit.