AIMS: This research project aims to identify attitudes towards cancer and associated information and communication needs of Chinese patients and their relatives in Sydney, thereby providing a framework for the provision of culturally appropriate cancer care for Chinese-Australians.
METHODS: A qualitative data collection strategy was selected as the most appropriate method, because no validated measures are available and no previous research has examined attitudes and needs of Chinese-Australian cancer patients. Patients were recruited from three major teaching hospitals in Sydney and from a Chinese cancer support organisation. Sampling was discontinued when informational redundancy was achieved. Four focus groups and 26 individual telephone interviews were conducted with a total of 36 cancer patients and 12 relatives born in China, Singapore and Malaysia.
RESULTS: While individual differences were observed, a majority view was expressed on a range of issues. Non-disclosure of a poor prognosis was favoured, and the role of the family in liaising between health professionals and the patient was emphasised. Patients preferred a confident and clear diagnosis and treatment recommendation. Most patients wished to incorporate Chinese culture-specific treatments into their care. The need for interpreters and psychological and spiritual support was emphasised.
CONCLUSIONS: Providing information in a culturally sensitive manner will assist doctors in providing optimum care and support for ethnic minority groups in this country.
FUNDING: Pfizer.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary public hospital from July- December 2015 among 276 randomly selected doctors. Data was collected using a standardized and validated self-administered questionnaire intending to measure disclosure and attitudes/perceptions. The scale had four vignettes in total two medical and two surgical. Each vignette consisted of five questions and each question measured the disclosure. Disclosure was categorised as "No Disclosure", "Partial Disclosure" or "Full Disclosure". Data was keyed in and analysed using STATA v 13.0.
RESULTS: Only 10.1% (n = 28) intended to disclose medical errors. Most respondents felt that they possessed an attitude/perception of adequately disclosing errors to patients. There was a statistically significant difference (p
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in 2017 which recruited medical students of UPNM. The Empathy Quotient, a self-reported questionnaire, was utilized for data collection. The total empathy score of the questionnaire is 80.
RESULTS: Majority of the respondents were male (60.9%), year-V students (26.6%), Malay (70.5%), and cadet officer (69.6%). The overall mean score achieved by the respondents was 36.76 ± 9.18, and 74.4% of the respondents scored more than 30. The empathy scores of the students were significantly affected by the gender (t = 2.371; df = 205; P < 0.05), year of study (F = 2.553; df = 4/202; P < 0.05), and examination grades (F = 3.488; df = 2/204; P < 0.05). The findings showed that female students are more empathetic than their male counterparts. Further, the post hoc Tukey test analysis revealed that Year-V students are more empathetic than their junior counterparts and students who got highest grade are more empathetic.
CONCLUSIONS: To improve the empathy level of the UPNM medical students, appropriate educational strategies and interventions should be designed and implemented in the curriculum to inculcate, maintain, and enhance empathy.
METHODS: Theme-oriented discourse analysis of two psychiatric consultation groups: control (n = 17) and intervention (n = 16). In the control group, only a doctor's conversation guide was used; in the intervention group, the conversation guide and a patient decision aid (PDA) were used.
RESULTS: Psychiatrists mainly dominated conversations in both consultation groups. They were less likely to elicit patient treatment-related perspectives in the intervention group as they focused more on delivering the information than obtaining patient perspectives. However, using PDA in the intervention group slightly encouraged patients to participate in decisional talk.
CONCLUSION: The decision support tools did promote SDM performance. Using the conversation guide in both consultation groups encouraged the elicitation of patient perspectives, which helped the psychiatrists in tailoring their recommendations of options based on patient preferences and concerns. Using the PDA in the intervention group created space for treatment discussion and fostered active collaboration in treatment decision making.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our findings have implications for SDM communication skills training and critical reflection on SDM practice.