A Grounded Theory Study of the Quality Relationships between Family Caregivers and Persons with Head and Neck Cancer

Main Article Content

Siranee Kejkornkaew
Yupapin Sirapo-ngam
Supreeda Monkong
Tiraporn Junda
Margaret I. Wallhagen


               The purpose of this grounded theory study was to explore the meaning and characteristics of the quality of relationships between Thai family caregivers and persons with head and neck cancer. Data was collected via in-depth interviews and the constant comparative method was used to analyse data to generate a theory of quality relationships among family caregivers of persons with head and neck cancer. Participants included 15 family caregivers; 13 spouses and two sons. The core category emerging from data anlaysis was quality relationships, which had four subcategories: feeling of love, sympathy, caring and connectedness. Love was defined as the caregiver’s desire to return the care-receiver’s love. Sympathy was defined as the caregiver’s feeling toward their care-receiver’s having cancer and suffering from the disease, and feeling sad for their care-receiver. Caring was defined as the caregiver’s feeling of concern and worry about their care-receiver. Connectedness was defined as the caregiver’s feeling of becoming closer to the care-receiver than before they started caregiving. The quality relationships between caregivers and persons with head and neck cancer is a dynamic process which occurred in three phases; the reason to be a caregiver, quality relationship, and provision of care. The Thai cultural context and religion influenced every phase of quality relationships. Nurses and other providers should integrate scientific, religious, and cultural knowledge into their clinical practice for promoting quality relationships in order to improve quality of care between family caregivers and persons with head and neck cancer.

Article Details

How to Cite
Kejkornkaew S, Sirapo-ngam Y, Monkong S, Junda T, Wallhagen MI. A Grounded Theory Study of the Quality Relationships between Family Caregivers and Persons with Head and Neck Cancer. PRIJNR [Internet]. 2016 Apr. 27 [cited 2022 Dec. 5];20(2):161-73. Available from: https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/PRIJNR/article/view/39281
Original paper


1. Fincham FD, Rogge R. Understanding relationship quality: Theoretical challenges and new tools for assessment. J Fam Theory Re. 2010; 2(4):227-42.

2. Shim B, Landerman LR, Davis LL. Correlates of care relationship mutuality among carers of people with Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease. J Adv Nurs. 2011;67(8):1729-38.

3. Quinn C, Clare L, Woods B. The impact of the quality of relationship on the experiences and wellbeing of caregivers of people with dementia: A systematic review. Aging Mental Health. 2009; 13(2):143-54.

4. Schumacher KL, Stewart BJ, Archbold PG, Caparro M, Mutale F, Agrawal S. Effects of caregiving demand, mutuality, and preparedness on family caregiver outcomes during cancer treatment. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2008; 35(1):49-56.

5. Hirschfeld M. Homecare versus institutionalization: family caregiving and senile brain disease. Int J Nurs Stud. 1983; 20(1):23-32.

6. Park EO, Schumacher KL. The state of the science of family caregiver-care receiver mutuality: a systematic review. Nurs Inq. 2014; 21(2):140-52.

7. Longacre ML, Ridge JA, Burtness BA, Galloway TJ, Fang CY. Psychological functioning of caregivers for head and neck cancer patients. Oral Oncol. 2012; 48(1):18-25.

8. Pruegsanusak K, Peeravut S, Leelamanit V, Sinkijcharoenchai W, Jongsatitpaiboon J, Phungrassami T, et al. Survival and prognostic factors of different sites of head and neck cancer: an analysis from Thailand. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012; 13(3):885-90.

9. Kitrungrote L, Wonghongkul T, Chanprasit C, Suttharangsee W, Cohen MZ. Experiences of caregivers of spouses with head and neck cancer undergoing radiation therapy. Thai J Nurs Res. 2008; 12 (3): 207-19.

10. Prechavittayakul P. Experiences of relatives in caring for head and neck cancer patients receiving radiotherapy and staying at Yensira Hostel. Songkha Med J 2006; 24(2):71-84.

11. Songwattanayut W. The study on the influences of mutuality and predictability of caregiving and personal factors relating to strain from direct care of patients with cerebrovascular disease on family caregivers: Unpublished thesis, Master of Nursing Science. Bangkok: Mahidol University, 2002.

12. Samartkit N. Caregiver role strain and rewards of caregiving: a study of caring for traumatic brain injured patient in eastern Thailand. Unpublished thesis for Doctor of Philosophy in Nursing. Bangkok: Mahidol University, 2008.

13. Wirojratana V. Development of the Thai family care inventory. Unpublished thesis, Doctor of Philosophy in Nursing. Portland, OR: Oregon Health & Science University, 2002.

14. Fletcher BS, Miaskowski C, Given B, Schumacher K. The cancer family caregiving experience: an updated and expanded conceptual model. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2012;16(4):387-98.

15. Cameron JI, Franche RL, Cheung AM, Stewart DE. Lifestyle interference and emotional distress in family caregivers of advanced cancer patients. Cancer. 2002; 94(2):521-7.

16. Choowattanapakorn T. The social situation in Thailand: the impact on elderly people. Int J Nurs Pract. 1999;5(2):95-9.

17. Rosenberg E, Jullamate P, Azeredo Z. Informal caregiving: Cross-cultural applicability of the Person-Environment Model. Health Sociology Review. 2009;18(4):399-411.

18. Greeff AP, Malherbe HL. Intimacy and marital satisfaction in spouses. J Sex Marital Ther. 2001; 27(3):247-57.

19. Timmerman GM. A concept analysis of intimacy. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 1991; 12(1):19-30.

20. Henson RH. Analysis of the concept of mutuality. Image J Nurs Sch. 1997; 29(1):77-81.

21. Schumacher KL, Stewart BJ, Archbold PG, Caparro M, Mutale F, Agrawal S. Effects of caregiving demand, mutuality, and preparedness on family caregiver outcomes during cancer treatment. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2008;35(1):49-56.

22. Fisher G. Spousal relationships in dementia care: University of Birmingham; 2010.

23. Kuijer RG, Buunk, BP, Ybema, JF. Are equity concerns important in the intimate relationship when one partner of a couple has cancer? Soc Psychol Q. 2001; 64(3):267-82.

23. Fehr B, Sprecher, S. Prototype analysis of the concept of compassionate love. Pers Relationship. 2009; 16(3): 343-64.

24. Lyonette C, Yardley L. The influence on carer wellbeing of motivations to care for older people and the relationship with the care recipient. Ageing Soc. 2003; 23(4):487-506.

25. Synder JR. Impact of Caregiver-Receiver Relationship Quality on Burden and Satisfaction. J Women Aging. 2000; 12(1/2):147.

26. Mok E, Chan F, Chan V, Yeung E. Family experience caring for terminally ill patients with cancer in Hong Kong. Cancer Nurs. 2003; 26(4):267-75.

27. Loke AY, Liu CF, Szeto Y. The difficulties faced by informal caregivers of patients with terminal cancer in Hong Kong and the available social support. Cancer Nurs. 2003; 26(4):276-83.

28. Thampanichawat W. Maintaining love and hope: caregiving for Thai children with HIV infection. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2008; 19(3):200-10.

29. Limpanichkul Y, Magilvy K. Managing Caregiving at Home: Thai Caregivers Living in the United States. J Cult Diver. 2004; 11(1):18-24.

30. Strauss AL, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and procedures for developing Grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage;1998

31. Holloway, I., & Wheeler, S. Qualitative Research in Nursing and Healthcare (3rd ed.). Blackwell: Oxford; 2010.

32. Monkong S. Psychometric analysis of Family Care Actions Index (FCAI) in the Thai population. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Portland,OR: Oregon Health & Science University, 2003.

33. Carruth AK, Tate US, Moffett BS, Hill K. Reciprocity, emotional well-being, and family functioning as determinants of family satisfaction in caregivers of elderly parents. Nurs Res. 1997; 46(2):93-100.

34. Underwood LG. Compassionate love: A framework for research. In: B. Fehr SS, & L. G. Underwood, editor. The science of compassionate love: Theory, research, and applications. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009, pp. 3-26.