4.6 Review

Cancer patients' trust in their physician-a review

期刊

PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY
卷 20, 期 3, 页码 227-241

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pon.1745

关键词

cancer; oncology; trust; physician-patient relations; review

资金

  1. Dutch Cancer Society [UVA 2008-4015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Patient's trust in their physician is crucial for desirable treatment outcomes such as satisfaction and adherence. In oncology, trust is possibly even more essential, due to the life-threatening nature of cancer. A review was undertaken of the current knowledge of the conceptualization, assessment, correlates, and consequences of cancer patients' trust in their physician. Methods: The empirical literature published in peer-reviewed journals between October 1988 and October 2008 was searched, employing all combinations and variations of the following keywords: trust, physician-patient relations, and cancer. Results: The search identified 45 relevant papers, only 11 of which drew attention to the conceptualization of trust, and 5 of which focused on trust as the primary subject of interest. Trust in physicians was strong overall. Patients' trust appeared to be enhanced by the physician's perceived technical competence, honesty, and patient-centred behaviour. A trusting relationship between patient and physician resulted in facilitated communication and medical decision making, a decrease of patient fear, and better treatment adherence. Conclusions: A lack of focus on trust and the conceptualization thereof, strong methodological variations between studies and a possible publication bias lead us to conclude that cancer patients' trust in their physician deserves more systematic, theoretically based, research attention. Consequently, studies are needed aimed at gaining a thorough understanding of the nature and impact of cancer patients' trust in their physician, and how the interaction between physician and patient may contribute to such trust. 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