Barriers against psychosocial communication: Oncologists' perceptions

54Citations
Citations of this article
66Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose: To explore oncologists' psychosocial attitudes and beliefs and their perceptions regarding barriers against psychosocial communication. Methods: A questionnaire was distributed to oncologists in Sweden (n = 537). Questions covered demography, the Physician Psychosocial Beliefs Scale (PPBS), and barriers against psychosocial communication. Stepwise multiple regression was used to determine what factors contribute the most to the PPBS score and the total number of barriers and barriers affecting clinical practice, respectively. Spearman rank-order correlation was used to determine correlation between PPBS score and number of barriers. Results: Questionnaire response rate was 64%. Mean PPBS value was 85.5 (range, 49 to 123; SD, 13.0). Most oncologists (93%) perceived one or more barriers in communicating psychosocial aspects with patients. On average, five different communication barriers were perceived, of which most were perceived to affect clinical practice. These barriers included insufficient consultation time, lack of resources for taking care of problems discovered, and lack of methods to evaluate patients' psychosocial health in clinical practice. There was a positive correlation (rs = 0.490; P < .001 and P = .001, respectively) and were more psychosocially oriented (P = .001). Conclusion: Oncologists perceive many different barriers affecting psychosocial communication in clinical practice. Interventions aiming to improve psychosocial communication must therefore be multifaceted and individualized to clinics and individual oncologists. It is important to minimize barriers to facilitate optimal care and treatment of patients with cancer.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Fagerlind, H., Kettis, Å., Glimelius, B., & Ring, L. (2013). Barriers against psychosocial communication: Oncologists’ perceptions. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 31(30), 3815–3822. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.45.1609

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free