4.5 Article

Doctor-patient communication -: Results of a four-year prospective study in rectal cancer patients

期刊

DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM
卷 46, 期 8, 页码 1038-1046

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1007/s10350-004-7278-6

关键词

rectal cancer; quality of life; communication

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to examine the effect of communication on rectal cancer patients' quality of life over four years. Previous studies have either used short follow-up periods or examined only certain aspects of quality of life, such as anxiety and depression. Methods: In a prospective, observational study, rectal cancer patients, recruited by clinicians over a two-year period, were sent questionnaires over four years. The clinical details of these patients were recorded by the Munich Cancer Registry. The psychological scores from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and CR38 were the main outcome variables. Results: Thirty-nine percent of the sample reported that some aspect of the communication they received was unclear (incomprehensible or too little). More than 60 percent wished to speak more with their physician. Younger patients and those in larger hospitals were more likely to report unclear communication (P<0.05). Analyses of covariance, controlled for age, gender, adjuvant therapy, stoma, education, clinic, and comorbidity, demonstrated that role, emotional, and social functioning scores were consistently lower in patients reporting unclear communication. Additionally, these patients experienced more problems sleeping, poorer body image, more financial worries, and a worse future perspective. Repeated measures analyses indicated that sleeping problems and emotional and social functioning difficulties persisted for at least three years. Conclusion: Reports of unclear communication were associated with poorer quality of life in rectal cancer patients without disease progression.

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