4.5 Article

Toward a greater understanding of breast cancer patients' decisions to discuss cancer-related internet information with their doctors: An exploratory study

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 89, 期 1, 页码 109-115

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.05.008

关键词

Internet; Doctor-patient communication; Breast cancer

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health [R03CA 130591]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate differences between breast cancer patients who do and do not discuss cancer-related internet information (CRII) with their doctors. Methods: 70 breast cancer patients completed questionnaires regarding internet use, discussions about CRII, and the doctor-patient relationship. Results: No significant differences were noted across patient, disease, or visit characteristics, or physician reliance between those who intended to discuss CRII and those who did not. Patients who intended to discuss CRII rated significantly higher pre-consultation anxiety levels. No significant differences in satisfaction, anxiety reduction, or trust in physician were found between patients who had discussed and those who had not. Patients' reasons for discussing or not discussing are detailed. Conclusion: Factors influencing patients' decisions to discuss CRII are complex and differ from those identified as leading patients to seek internet information. Future research about internet discussions should investigate the impact of patients' preferred role in treatment, the doctor-patient relationship, anxiety level, attributes of CRII, and physician trust. Practice implications: Understanding the characteristics of patients who do and do not discuss internet information is important given the impact internet information has on healthcare communication and the doctor-patient relationship, including the development of interventions aimed at improving such interactions. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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