4.5 Article

Treatment Decision Regret and Related Factors Following Radical Prostatectomy

期刊

CANCER NURSING
卷 34, 期 5, 页码 417-422

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/NCC.0b013e318206b22b

关键词

Health-related quality of life; Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy; Regret

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Issues such as physical and psychological distress impact the quality of life of patients after a radical prostatectomy (RP). It is important to understand the regret that patients often report following a RP and the factors that influence their regret. Objective: The objective of the present study was to understand the regret that patients report following a RP and the influencing factors for their regret. Methods: Patients who had a diagnosis of prostate cancer and who underwent a RP between 2004 and 2010 were recruited for this study. The data gathered included a regret scale; the University of California, Los Angeles, Prostate Cancer Index; and demographic and disease-related information. Results: A total of 100 patients participated in our study. Of those who participated, 31% regretted that they had received an RP. Stepwise regression showed that the following 5 variables were predictors of patient regret after an RP: whether the patient would choose to have an RP again, understanding the treatment and complications, bothersome adverse sexual effects, age, and bothersome adverse bowel effects. Conclusion: We found that 31% of the participants reported experiencing regret after receiving an RP. Our data suggest that urologists and nurses should carefully portray the risks and benefits of RPs during preoperative counseling to minimize patient regret and maximize patient satisfaction. Implications for Practice: Patient regret after an RP is common. Urological nurses should therefore counsel patients regarding the impacts of complications associated with RPs and seek appropriate nursing interventions to reduce patient regret following an RP.

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