4.6 Article

The association between the strength of the working alliance and sharing concerns by advanced cancer patients: a pilot study

期刊

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
卷 24, 期 1, 页码 319-325

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-015-2794-6

关键词

Cancer; Oncology; Patient-medical staff interaction; Sharing concerns; Working alliance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A strong therapeutic alliance between cancer patients and medical staff is associated with treatment adherence, better health outcomes, and an emotional acceptance of a terminal illness. Given its significant role, the current study investigated the association between the working alliance and sharing concerns by advanced cancer patients. Advanced cancer patients completed the Working Alliance Inventory-Short Revised and a checklist of topics in which they rated their degree of concern about the topics and the degree of sharing them with their physician/nurse. Fifty-two patients completed the study. The working alliance was found to be strong with respect to treating physicians and nurses. The four topics that concerned patients the most were family coping with their illness (81 %), fear of future suffering (71 %), symptom control (67 %), and the oncological treatment (65 %). Patients with a strong working alliance with their physician shared to a higher extent the personal and main concern regarding their family's coping, and a significant correlation was found between them (r = 0.53, p < .01). In addition, sharing fears of future suffering was also correlated with a strong working alliance with the physician (r = 0.28, p < .05). A strong working alliance with the nurse was correlated with discussing symptoms control (r = 0.30, p < .05). These findings provide preliminary support for an association between the strength of the working alliance and the type of concerns that advanced cancer patients choose to discuss with their medical staff and highlight the importance of follow-up studies to further explore this association.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据