| 1. |
- Fagerlind, Hanna, et al.
(författare)
-
Patient-physician communication during oncology consultations
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Psycho-Oncology. - : Wiley. - 1057-9249 .- 1099-1611. ; 17:10, s. 975-985
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to characterize the content of patient-physician communication in standard oncology care. METHODS: The sample consisted of 19 patients with gastrointestinal cancer. The consultations were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed according to qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The analysis resulted in seven main categories: Disease and treatment, Healthcare planning, Everyday living, Psychological well-being, Coping with disease, Expressions of concerns and feelings, and Other aspects of communication. The main focus during the consultations was on disease and treatment. Physicians tended to concentrate on response to treatment and types and severity of side effects and how to treat them. More patient-centered subjects of psychosocial character like coping and psychological well-being were discussed only briefly, if at all. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds to the information given by the existing communication analysis systems, and hence we suggest a development of the psychosocial content categories of those systems to make them more valid.
|
|
| 2. |
- Kettis, Åsa, et al.
(författare)
-
Patients'and doctors' views of using the schedule for individual quality of life in clinical practice.
- 2007
-
Ingår i: JOURNAL OF SUPPORTIVE ONCOLOGY. - 1544-6794. ; 5:6, s. 281-287
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This study explored patients’ and oncologists’ perceptions ofusing a computer-administered, individualized quality-of-life (QOL) in-strument to support an oncologic consultation. Twenty patients with gas-trointestinal cancer (50% female; mean age 60 years) at two hospitals inSweden completed the Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality ofLife-Direct Weight (SEIQoL–DW) and the Disease-Related (DR) SEIQoL-DWand brought the results to the consultation. Afterwards, interviews wereconducted with all patients and six of eight doctors. All interviews wereaudiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using an interpretivist approach.Most patients and doctors believed that the instrument would facilitatedetection of patients’ areas of concern and would support monitoringof patients’ QOL. This tool may empower the patient, give the doctor abroader picture of the patient, and influence clinical decision-making. TheSEIQoL-DW may be a systematic method of stimulating patient-centeredcare. It apparently encourages patients to reflect upon their own situationand allows them to be seen as whole persons. However, further quantita-tive evaluation of the intervention’s outcomes is required.
|
|
| 3. |
- Ring, Lena, et al.
(författare)
-
Feasibility and validity of a computer administered version of SEIQoL-DW
- 2006
-
Ingår i: Quality of Life Research. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0962-9343 .- 1573-2649. ; 15:7, s. 1173-1177
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Computer administrered QoL instruments are increasingly used to assess outcomes. Our aim was to assess the feasibility and validity of an electronic version of the SEIQoL-DW. Pharmacy students (n = 40; mean age 25; 92% women) were administrated both the touch screen and the paper-and-pen versions in a cross-over study. The majority of the students (65 %) preferred the computer version, while almost a third (27%) preferred the paper and pen version. There was no overall order effect and the SEOQoL-DW index mean scores differed with 1.2 between the two versions. Those respondents completing the computer version first had higher scores than those completing the computer version second. The ICC comparing the formats was 0.77 (CI: 0.57-0.88) and the limits of agreement method showed that 85% of the observations were within +/- 1-10 units. Most students (82%) judged their QoL as being equivalent to their SEIQoL-DW score. The computer version of the SEIQoL-DW seems to be feasible and acceptable and seems to be valid alternative to the paper and pen version. However, further validation studies in larger patient populations are needed.
|
|
