4.6 Article

Adjustment to cancer and the information needs of people with lung cancer

期刊

PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY
卷 20, 期 5, 页码 488-496

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pon.1752

关键词

lung cancer; radiation oncology; adjustment; coping; information needs; communication

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Although typically high, the need for information varies between cancer patients. Few studies, however, have examined the factors that predict patient information needs. This study investigated the influence of different styles of adjustment to cancer on information needs. It was proposed that adjustment styles can be defined in terms of goal pursuit and that adjustment influences information needs as these also arise from goal pursuit. Method: Seventy-three lung cancer patients were recruited at their first appointment with their radiation oncologist. Participants completed the Patient Information Needs Questionnaire measuring Disease Orientated (DO) information and Action Orientated (AO) information, the Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Scale, and a purpose-built measure of cancer-related personal goals. Results: High levels of the adjustment styles, Fighting Spirit and Anxious Preoccupation, were related to a high need for DO information (p = 0.042 and 0.023, respectively). Conversely, high levels of the adjustment style Cognitive Avoidance was related to a low need for DO information (p = 0.041). High levels of Anxious Preoccupation were also positively related to a high need for AO information (p = 0.018). Support for the proposed theoretical model was also found: information goals predicted information needs and mediated the relationship between Fighting Spirit and DO information need. Conclusions: These findings suggest that information needs vary as a function of adjustment to cancer. Consequently information provision to cancer patients could be more appropriately tailored by attending to how a patient is adjusting to their diagnosis of cancer. Copyright (C) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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