| Title |
Preference of cancer patients and family members regarding delivery of bad news and differences in clinical practice among medical staff
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-018-4348-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zhongyi Fan, Liyan Chen, Limin Meng, Haihua Jiang, Qianqian Zhao, Lili Zhang, Chun-Kai Fang |
| Abstract |
To study the preferences of cancer patients and their families in way of being informed of their condition and, by comparing their preferences with the medical staff's clinical practices, explore the factors underlying the latter's preferences. A survey was conducted with 216 cancer patients, 242 families, and 176 clinical staff members with the Medical Status Communication questionnaire (Simplified Chinese edition). The clinical staff scored lower than the cancer patients and their families in terms of the total score, way of communication, emotional support, and additional information (F = 16.134, p < .001; F = 28.604, p < .001; F = 13.839, p < .001; F = 16.745, p < .001). Factors underlying the medical staff's clinical practices included, as revealed by the multiple linear regression analysis, gender (p = .03), and willingness to improve the way of communication about cancer (p = .006). A gap existed between the medical staff's clinical practice and the preferences of the cancer patients and their families. The medical staff should receive adequate training in cancer communication skills and techniques for improvement in this respect. When designing training for skills in delivering bad news to cancer patients, the well-being of cancer patients and their families must be thoroughly considered, and patient demands for information should be satisfied in the context of the information explosion of the current age. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Researcher | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 18 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 13% |
| Psychology | 5 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 19 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 August 2018.
All research outputs
#15,540,879
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#3,149
of 4,652 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,263
of 329,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#82
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,652 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,174 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.