Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 4/2019

01-04-2019 | Original Article

Reciprocity within patient-physician and patient-spouse/caregiver dyads: insights into patient-centered care

Authors: Elizabeth Palmer Kelly, Julia L. Agne, Alexa Meara, Timothy M. Pawlik

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 4/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To explore the reciprocal process of decisional conflict within the patient-physician dyad, and its relationship with patient general health and patient-perceived physician helpfulness. Among the subset of participants who were in a committed relationship, we examined the congruence in reciprocal processes between patient-spouse/caregiver and patient-physician dyads.

Methods

An online retrospective survey of cancer patients was conducted in the USA. The reciprocal process of decisional conflict within the patient-physician dyad was measured using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). The Perception of Spousal Reciprocity Scale (POSRS) was used to measure reciprocity in the patient-spouse/caregiver dyad.

Results

The final analytic cohort consisted of 116 participants. The average age of participants was 58.4 years, the majority were female (66.7%), and the most common diagnosis was breast cancer (27.9%). Participants who perceived their physician as more helpful were more likely to report lower levels of decisional conflict on the DCS total scale and subscales (r range = 0.24–0.46, p < 0.05). Higher scores on the PSORS were associated with lower levels of decisional conflict (r = − 0.37, p < 0.01). Participants not in a relationship had higher levels of decisional conflict about their treatment decisions (M = 21.69) than participants in a relationship (M = 9.69, t(26.95) = − 2.26, p = 0.032).

Discussion

Physicians are an important resource for both the patient and caregiver during the cancer journey. Understanding reciprocal processes within the patient-physician relationship related to patient-centered care and including the caregiver in the medical decision-making process can decrease the threat of decisional conflict and subsequent adverse outcomes.
Literature
3.
go back to reference Roter D (2011) The Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS): applicability within the context of cancer and palliative care. In: Handbook of Communication in Oncology and Palliative Care Roter D (2011) The Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS): applicability within the context of cancer and palliative care. In: Handbook of Communication in Oncology and Palliative Care
4.
go back to reference Roter D (2000) The enduring and evolving nature of the patient-physician relationship. Patient Educ Couns 39:5–15CrossRefPubMed Roter D (2000) The enduring and evolving nature of the patient-physician relationship. Patient Educ Couns 39:5–15CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Helgeson VS, Cohen S (1996) Social support and adjustment to cancer: reconciling descriptive, correlational, and intervention research. Health Psychol 15:135–148CrossRefPubMed Helgeson VS, Cohen S (1996) Social support and adjustment to cancer: reconciling descriptive, correlational, and intervention research. Health Psychol 15:135–148CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Decker CL (2007) Social support and adolescent cancer survivors: a review of the literature. Psychooncology 16:1–11CrossRefPubMed Decker CL (2007) Social support and adolescent cancer survivors: a review of the literature. Psychooncology 16:1–11CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Nausheen B, Gidron Y, Peveler R, Moss-Morris R (2009) Social support and cancer progression: a systematic review. J Psychosom Res 67:403–415CrossRefPubMed Nausheen B, Gidron Y, Peveler R, Moss-Morris R (2009) Social support and cancer progression: a systematic review. J Psychosom Res 67:403–415CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference American Cancer Society (2016) Cancer treatment & survivorship facts & figures 2016–2017. Atlanta American Cancer Society (2016) Cancer treatment & survivorship facts & figures 2016–2017. Atlanta
23.
go back to reference O’Connor AM (1993) User manual – Decisional Conflict Scale O’Connor AM (1993) User manual – Decisional Conflict Scale
24.
go back to reference Brehaut JC, O’Connor AM, Wood TJ et al (2003) Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Mak 23:281–292CrossRef Brehaut JC, O’Connor AM, Wood TJ et al (2003) Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Mak 23:281–292CrossRef
26.
28.
go back to reference Goldberg RJ, Cullen LO (1985) Factors important to psychosocial adjustment to cancer: a review of the evidence. Soc Sci Med 20:803–807CrossRefPubMed Goldberg RJ, Cullen LO (1985) Factors important to psychosocial adjustment to cancer: a review of the evidence. Soc Sci Med 20:803–807CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Krumpal I (2013) Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review. Qual Quant 47:2025–2047CrossRef Krumpal I (2013) Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review. Qual Quant 47:2025–2047CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Reciprocity within patient-physician and patient-spouse/caregiver dyads: insights into patient-centered care
Authors
Elizabeth Palmer Kelly
Julia L. Agne
Alexa Meara
Timothy M. Pawlik
Publication date
01-04-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 4/2019
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-018-4482-9

Other articles of this Issue 4/2019

Supportive Care in Cancer 4/2019 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine