摘要
目的:探讨癌症患者及其家属对疾病的认知差异,为认知干预提供参考。方法:收集患者和家属关注较多的19个问题编制成疾病认知问卷,调查60对首次入院治疗的癌症患者及其家属。结果:患者和家属对以下5个条目回答差异明显,①是否知道诊断(患者知道的占83%,家属知道的占97%,χ2=5.93,P=0.015);②是否应该告知患者诊断(87%患者和65%家属认为是,χ2=7.69,P=0.006);③患者本人是否必要知道治疗的详细方案(77%患者和62%家属认为有必要,χ2=8.71,P=0.013);④应该由谁来决定患者的治疗方式的选择(患者认为由自己决定的占7%,家属认为由患者决定的占17%,χ2=7.19,P=0.028);⑤假如治疗只能延缓病程,减轻痛苦,你会怎样选择(患者选择继续治疗的占80%,家属选择继续治疗的占97%,χ2=8.09,P=0.004)。受教育程度高(χ2=5.63,P=0.018)和有固定职业(χ2=4.10,P=0.043)的患者希望被告知详细治疗方案。结论:患者之间以及患者和家属之间在知情及治疗的认知上存在差异,在与他们的交流中,需要区别对待。
Objective: To compare the cognition of cancer patients and their relatives,so as to provide references for cognitive intervention.Methods: Cognition questionnaire consists 19 questions to which most patients and their relatives concern.Sixty new cases of cancer patients and their relatives were included in this study.Results: Answers to the 5 following questions from the patients and their relatives were different with statistical significance: do you know the diagnosis(83% patients know,97% relatives know,χ^2=5.93,P=0.015);whether to inform patients of diagnosis or not(87% patients chose yes,65% relatives chose yes,χ^2=7.69,P=0.006);is it necessary to tell patient intimate therapeutic regimen(77% patients thought it is necessary,62% relatives thought it is necessary,χ^2=8.71,P=0.013);who decide the method(s) of treatment(7% patients and 17% relatives' answer is the patients,χ^2=7.19,P=0.028);if the treatment is unable to cure your disease,what would be your option(80% patients and 97% relatives chose treatment,χ^2=8.09,P=0.004).Different educational background(χ^2=5.63,P=0.018) and occupation(χ^2=4.10,P=0.043) affected their cognition on being informed of the intimate therapeutic regimen.Conclusion:Patients and relatives cognition of being informed of the diagnosis and therapy are diverse from each other.In communication with them,doctors must treat them respectively.
出处
《中国心理卫生杂志》
CSSCI
CSCD
北大核心
2008年第6期405-408,共4页
Chinese Mental Health Journal
基金
广东省自然科学基金资助项目(5300903)
关键词
癌症
认知
患者
家属
横断面调查
cancer
cognition
patients
relatives
cross-sectional studies