Oncology healthcare professionals (HCPs) and cancer patients often have difficulties in navigating conversations about sexual changes and concerns due to cancer and its treatments. The present study draws on Discursive Psychology to analyze how the topic of sexuality is raised and managed in Dutch oncological consultations. Our corpus consists of 28 audio recordings. We analyzed the discursive practices used by cancer patients and oncology HCPs and to what effect. Patients, on the one hand, employ vagueness, pronouns, and ellipses, while HCPs attribute talk to others and use generalizations and speech perturbations. Through these practices they collectively keep the topic of sexuality at a distance, thereby constructing it as a delicate topic. Moreover, we explicate the norms related to sexual behavior that cancer patients and oncology HCPs orient to in their talk. Finally, we address ways in which oncology HCPs can open the door on discussing sexual changes with their patients.
AlbersL. F.Van BelzenM. A.Van BatenburgC.EngelenV.PutterH.PelgerR. C. M.ElzevierH. W. (2020). Discussing sexuality in cancer care: Towards personalized information for cancer patients and survivors. Supportive Care in Cancer, 28(9), 4227–4233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-05257-3
2.
AlbersL. F.Van EkG. F.KrouwelE. M.Oosterkamp-BorgelinkC. M.LiefersG. J.Den OudenM. E. M.Den OudstenB. L.Krol-WarmerdamE. E. M.GuicheritO. R.Linthorst-NiersE.PutterH.PelgerR. C. M.ElzevierH. W. (2020). Sexual health needs: How do breast cancer patients and their partners want information?Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 46(3), 205–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2019.1676853
3.
AnnerstedtC. F.GlasdamS. (2019). Nurses’ attitudes towards support for and communication about sexual health – A qualitative study from the perspectives of oncological nurses. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 28(19–20), 3556–3566. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14949
BeachW. A.PrickettE. (2017). Laughter, humor, and cancer: Delicate moments and poignant interactional circumstances. Health Communication, 32(7), 791–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1172291
8.
BenkendorfJ. L.PrinceM. B.RoseM. A.De FinaA.HamiltonH. E. (2001). Does indirect speech promote nondirective genetic counseling? Results of a sociolinguistic investigation. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 106(3), 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.10012
9.
BergmannJ. R. (1992). Veiled morality: Notes on discretion in psychiatry. In DrewP.HeritageJ. (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 137–162). Cambridge University Press.
10.
Cairo NotariS.FavezN.NotariL.Panes-RuedinB.AntoniniT.DelaloyeJ.-F. (2018). Women’s experiences of sexual functioning in the early weeks of breast cancer treatment. European Journal of Cancer Care, 27(1), e12607. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12607
11.
CanzonaM. R.GarciaD.FisherC. L.RaleighM.KalishV.LedfordC. J. W. (2016). Communication about sexual health with breast cancer survivors: Variation among patient and provider perspectives. Patient Education and Counseling, 99(11), 1814–1820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.06.019
CoulmasF. (1986). Direct and indirect speech. Mouton de Gruyter.
14.
De KokB. C.WiddicombeS. (2008). ‘I really tried’: Management of normative issues in accounts of responses to infertility. Social Science & Medicine, 67(7), 1083–1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.05.007
DrewP.HoltE. (1988). Complainable matters: The use of idiomatic expressions in making complaints. Social Problems, 35(4), 398–417. https://doi.org/10.2307/800594
17.
DrewP.HoltE. (1998). Figures of speech: Figurative expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation. Language in Society, 27(4), 495–522. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500020200
18.
EdwardsD. (1994). Script formulations: An analysis of event descriptions in conversation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13(3), 211–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X94133001
19.
EdwardsD. (1997). Discourse and cognition. Sage.
20.
EdwardsD. (2007). Managing subjectivity in talk. In HepburnA.WigginsS. (Eds.), Discursive research in practice: New approaches to psychology and interaction (pp. 31–49). Cambridge University Press.
FennellR.GrantB. (2019). Discussing sexuality in health care: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 28(17–18), 3065–3076. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14900
24.
ForsgrenE.BjörkmanI. (2021). Interactional practices in person-centred care: Conversation analysis of nurse-patient disagreement during self-management support. Health Expectations, 24(3), 940–950. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13236
25.
FoxB. A. (2008). Evidentiality: Authority, responsibility, and entitlement in English conversation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 11(2), 167–192. https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2001.11.2.167
26.
FrithH.KitzingerC. (2001). Reformulating sexual script theory: Developing a discursive psychology of sexual negotiation. Theory & Psychology, 11(2), 209–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354301112004
GilbertE.UssherJ. M.PerzJ. (2010). Renegotiating sexuality and intimacy in the context of cancer: The experiences of carers. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(4), 998–1009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9416-z
29.
GoffmanE. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
30.
GordonC. (2013). Beyond the observer’s paradox: The audio-recorder as a resource for the display of identity. Qualitative Research, 13(3), 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112442771
31.
GordonC.PrinceM. B.BenkendorfJ. L.HamiltonH. E. (2002). “People say it’s a little uncomfortable”: Prenatal genetic counselors’ use of constructed dialogue to reference procedural pain. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 11(4), 245–263. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016326431443
32.
GreenfieldD. M.WaltersS. J.ColemanR. E.HancockB. W.SnowdenJ. A.ShaletS. M.DeRogatisL. R.RossR. J. M. (2010). Quality of life, self-esteem, fatigue, and sexual function in young men after cancer. Cancer, 116(6), 1592–1601. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24898
33.
GuiseJ.McVittieC.McKinlayA. (2010). A discourse analytic study of ME/CFS (chronic fatigue syndrome) sufferers’ experiences of interactions with doctors. Journal of Health Psychology, 15(3), 426–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105309350515
34.
HalonenM. (2008). Person reference as a device for constructing experiences as typical in group therapy. In PeräkyläA.AntakiC.VehviläinenS.LeudarI. (Eds.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy (pp. 139–151). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490002.009
35.
HayC. M.DonovanH. S.HartnettE. G.CarterJ.RobergeM. C.CampbellG. B.ZuchelkowskiB. E.TaylorS. E. (2018). Sexual health as part of gynecologic cancer care: What do patients want?International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer, 28(9), 1737–1742. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000001376
HeritageJ. (2015). Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 88, 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008
38.
HeritageJ.RaymondG. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103
39.
HeritageJ.SorjonenM.-L. (1994). Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society, 23(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017656
40.
HeritageJ.WatsonD. R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In PsathasG. (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 123–162). Irvington.
HordernA.StreetA. (2007). Communicating about patient sexuality and intimacy after cancer: Mismatched expectations and unmet needs. Medical Journal of Australia, 186(5), 224–227. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb00877.x
43.
JacksonC. (2016). “I sort of did stuff to him”: A case study of tellability and taboo in young people’s talk about sex. Narrative Inquiry, 26(1), 150–170. https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.26.1.08jac
44.
JarrettN. J.PayneS. A. (2000). Creating and maintaining ‘optimism’ in cancer care communication. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 37(1), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7489(99)00039-5
45.
JeffersonG. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In LernerG. H. (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–32). John Benjamins.
46.
JolG.StommelW. (2016). Resisting the legitimacy of the question: Self-evident answers to questions about sources of knowledge in police interviews with child witnesses. International Journal of Legal Discourse, 1(2), 345–374. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2016-0014
47.
KelderI.SneijderP.KlarenbeekA.LaanE. (2022). Communication practices in conversations about sexual health in medical healthcare settings: A systematic review. Patient Education and Counseling, 105(4), 858–868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2021.07.049
48.
KelderI.SneijderP.KlarenbeekA.RoseboomT.LaanE. (2023). Accounting for sexual issues related to cancer: A discursive psychological approach to online talk between women in heterosexual relationships. European Journal of Health Communication, 4(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.47368/ejhc.2023.201
49.
KitzingerC. (2005). “Speaking as a heterosexual”: (How) does sexuality matter for talk-in-interaction?Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(3), 221–265. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3803_2
50.
KiyimbaN.LesterJ. N.O’ReillyM. (2019). Using naturally occurring data in qualitative health research: A practical guide. Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94839-3
51.
LabovW.FanshelD. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. Academic Press.
52.
LernerG. H. (2013). On the place of hesitating in delicate formulations: A turn-constructional infrastructure for collaborative indiscretion. In HayashiM.RaymondG.SidnellJ. (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 95–134). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511757464.004
53.
MareeJ.FitchM. I. (2019). Holding conversations with cancer patients about sexuality: Perspectives from Canadian and African healthcare professionals. Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal = Revue Canadienne de Nursing Oncologique, 29(1), 64–69. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31148617/
54.
McPhillipsK.BraunV.GaveyN. (2001). Defining (hetero)sex: How imperative is the “coital imperative”?Women’s Studies International Forum, 24(2), 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-5395(01)00160-1
55.
O’ConnorS. R.ConnaghanJ.MaguireR.KotronoulasG.FlannaganC.JainS.BradyN.McCaughanE. (2019). Healthcare professional perceived barriers and facilitators to discussing sexual wellbeing with patients after diagnosis of chronic illness: A mixed-methods evidence synthesis. Patient Education and Counseling, 102(5), 850–863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2018.12.015
56.
OstermannA. C. (2017). ‘No mam. You are heterosexual’: Whose language? Whose sexuality?Journal of Sociolinguistics, 21(3), 348–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12240
57.
ParryR.PinoM.FaullC.FeathersL. (2016). Acceptability and design of video-based research on healthcare communication: Evidence and recommendations. Patient Education and Counseling, 99(8), 1271–1284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.03.013
58.
PeräkyläA. (1998). Authority and accountability: The delivery of diagnosis in primary health care. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(4), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787032
59.
PeräkyläA. (2012). Conversation analysis in psychotherapy. In SidnellJ.StiversT. (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 551–574). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch27
60.
PerzJ.UssherJ. M.GilbertE. (2013). Constructions of sex and intimacy after cancer: Q methodology study of people with cancer, their partners, and health professionals. BMC Cancer, 13(1), 270. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-13-270
61.
PomerantzA. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn-shapes. In AtkinsonJ. M.HeritageJ. (Eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge University Press.
62.
PomerantzA. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9(2–3), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128
63.
PortsK. A.Barnack-TavlarisJ. L.SymeM. L.PereraR. A.LafataJ. E. (2014). Sexual health discussions with older adult patients during periodic health exams. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 11(4), 901–908. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12448
64.
PotterJ. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. Sage.
65.
PotterJ. (2012). Discourse analysis and discursive psychology. In CooperH. (Ed.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (Vol. 2, pp. 111–130). American Psychological Association Press.
66.
PotterJ.HepburnA. (2010). Putting aspiration into words: ‘laugh particles’, managing descriptive trouble and modulating action. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6), 1543–1555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.003
ReeseJ. B.BeachM. C.SmithK. C.BantugE. T.CasaleK. E.PorterL. S.BoberS. L.TulskyJ. A.DalyM. B.LeporeS. J. (2017). Effective patient-provider communication about sexual concerns in breast cancer: A qualitative study. Supportive Care in Cancer, 25(10), 3199–3207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3729-1
69.
RobinsonJ. D. (2005). Soliciting patients’ presenting concerns. In HeritageJ.MaynardD. W. (Eds.), Communication in medical care: Interactions between primary care physicians and patients (pp. 22–47). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607172.004
SchiffrinD. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press.
72.
SchiffrinD. (1993). “Speaking for another” in sociolinguistic interviews: Alignments, identities, and frames. In TannenD. (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 231–263). Oxford University Press.
73.
SchultzW. C. M. W.Van De WielH. B. M.HahnD. E. E.BoumaJ. (1992). Psychosexual functioning after treatment for gynecological cancer: An integrative model, review of determinant factors and clinical guidelines. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, 2(6), 281–290. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1438.1992.02060281.x
74.
SeurenL. M.HuiskesM. (2017). Confirmation or elaboration: What do yes/no declaratives want?Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(2), 188–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1301307
75.
SilvermanD. (1997). Discourses of counselling: HIV counselling as social interaction. Sage.
76.
SilvermanD.BorR. (1991). The delicacy of describing sexual partners in HIV-test counselling: Implications for practice. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 4(2–3), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515079108256721
77.
SilvermanD.PeräkyläA. (1990). AIDS counselling: The interactional organisation of talk about ‘delicate’ issues. Sociology of Health & Illness, 12(3), 293–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347251
78.
SpeerS. A. (2013). Talking about sex in the gender identity clinic: Implications for training and practice. Health, 17(6), 622–639. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459312472085
79.
SpornN. J.SmithK. B.PirlW. F.LennesI. T.HylandK. A.ParkE. R. (2015). Sexual health communication between cancer survivors and providers: How frequently does it occur and which providers are preferred?Psycho-Oncology, 24(9), 1167–1173. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3736
80.
StiversT.MondadaL.SteensigJ. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In StiversT.MondadaL.SteensigJ. (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 3–26). Cambridge University Press.
81.
TannenD. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse.Cambridge University Press.
Themessl-HuberM.HumphrisG.DowellJ.MacgillivrayS.RushmerR.WilliamsB. (2008). Audio-visual recording of patient–GP consultations for research purposes: A literature review on recruiting rates and strategies. Patient Education and Counseling, 71(2), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2008.01.015
TraaM. J.De VriesJ.RoukemaJ. A.RuttenH. J. T.Den OudstenB. L. (2014). The sexual health care needs after colorectal cancer: The view of patients, partners, and health care professionals. Supportive Care in Cancer, 22(3), 763–772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-013-2032-z
86.
TracyM.McDivittK.RyanM.TomlinsonJ.BrottoL. A. (2016). Feasibility of a sexual health clinic within cancer care: A pilot study using qualitative methods. Cancer Nursing, 39(4), E32–E42. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0000000000000295
87.
TraumerL.JacobsenM. H.LaursenB. S. (2019). Patients’ experiences of sexuality as a taboo subject in the Danish healthcare system: A qualitative interview study. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 33(1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12600
88.
UssherJ. M.PerzJ.GilbertE.WongW. K. T.HobbsK. (2013). Renegotiating sex and intimacy after cancer: Resisting the coital imperative. Cancer Nursing, 36(6), 454–462. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0b013e3182759e21
89.
UssherJ. M.PerzJ.GilbertE.WongW. K. T.MasonC.HobbsK.KirstenL. (2013). Talking about sex after cancer: A discourse analytic study of health care professional accounts of sexual communication with patients. Psychology & Health, 28(12), 1370–1390. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2013.811242
90.
WaringH. Z. (2017). Going general as a resource for doing advising in post-observation conferences in teacher training. Journal of Pragmatics, 110, 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.009
WeijtsW.HoutkoopH.MullenP. (1993). Talking delicacy: Speaking about sexuality during gynaecological consultations. Sociology of Health & Illness, 15(3), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep10490531
93.
WigginsS. (2017). Discursive psychology: Theory, method and applications. Sage.
94.
WilkinsonS.KitzingerC. (2000). Thinking differently about thinking positive: A discursive approach to cancer patients’ talk. Social Science & Medicine, 50(6), 797–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00337-8
95.
WooffittR. (1992). Telling tales of the unexpected: The organisation of factual discourse. Harvester Wheatsheaf.
96.
WoolgarS. (1988). Science: The very idea. Travistock.
97.
WoolgarS.LatourB. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton University Press.
ZimmaroL. A.LeporeS. J.BeachM. C.ReeseJ. B. (2020). Patients’ perceived barriers to discussing sexual health with breast cancer healthcare providers. Psycho-Oncology, 29(7), 1123–1131. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.5386
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
