Abstract
Although researchers have conducted extensive studies of the psychosocial impacts of prostate cancer and its treatment on men’s bodies, masculinity and sexuality, little attention has been devoted to the intersection of gender and age in the healthcare experience of this illness. Based on data collected through direct observation in four French public hospitals, and 65 semi-directive interviews with prostate cancer patients, their relatives and healthcare professionals, this article aims to examine how age and gender shape care pathways. We argue that combining the concept of hegemonic masculinity with an intersectional approach may provide an adequate theoretical framework for analysing the plurality of men’s prostate cancer healthcare experience. Four steps of the patient care process are successively analysed to assess how the patient experience of illness may be influenced by power relations that interact with individual characteristics: screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up care.
Highlights
At global level, prostate cancer is one of the commonest male cancers
One of the difficulties that arises is the potential conflict between patient-centred care and Evidence-Based Medicine (Bensig 2000). When it comes to developing person-centred care for prostate cancer patients, we argue that this objective is rendered difficult by inadequate recognition of the plurality of masculinities within institutions and among healthcare professionals
We argue that combining the concept of hegemonic masculinity with an intersectional approach provides an appropriate theoretical framework for analysing the plurality of men’s prostate cancer experience
Summary
Around 1,100,000 new cases are diagnosed, and 300,000 deaths attributed to it, worldwide (Tao et al 2015). This extremely common cancer affects an ageing population. Taking into account gender dynamics, social science studies have led the way in extending and deepening knowledge about how men manage prostate cancer, by examining experiences shared by patients in support groups (Arrington 2000; Cecil et al 2010; Oliffe et al 2010); doctor–patient communication (Arrington 2004; Oliffe 2007) and effects on personal identity (Arrington 2008; Broom 2004; Chapple & Ziebland 2002; Gray et al 2002; Kelly 2009; Oliffe 2006, 2011; Stansbury et al 2003; Wall & Kristjanson 2005)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
