722 / DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2017.722ecancer 11
Objective: To investigate patients’ satisfaction and perceived utility for psychological consultations delivered by clinical psychologists in a sample of gynaecological cancer patients hospitalised for surgery.
Methods: A total of 51 gynaecological cancer patients who scored higher than four on the distress thermometer (DT) were proposed and received a psychological consultation during hospitalisation for surgery. After six months from discharge, patients were asked, during a telephone interview, to rate their level of distress post-treatment, their perceived satisfaction, and usefulness of the psychological intervention received.
Results: At the time of the telephone interview, the distress levels stated by patients tended to be lower than those at hospital admission, and around 61% of the patients expressed maximum satisfaction with psychological intervention. Among these, 60.8% rated the psychological consultation useful for dealing with the hospitalisation itself, 45.1% useful for dealing with personal issues and 58.8% for dealing with issues related to returning home. People who were at their first diagnosis and those who had no other reason to be distressed beyond their cancer found psychological support significantly more useful for facing up to personal issues.
Conclusions: Patients are highly satisfied with integrative psychological interventions delivered by clinical psychologists in a medical setting such as that of gynaecological cancer surgery and from the six-month follow-up, it emerged that such interventions help in promoting patients’ adjustment to the phase of hospitalisation and post-hospital discharge.
Keywords: gynaecological cancer surgery setting, psychological intervention, interprofessional practice, cancer patients’ distress, patient satisfaction
Loading Article Metrics ... Please wait
07 Apr 2017 / DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2017.732Published:
28 Feb 2017 / DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2017.723Published:
05 Jan 2017 / DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2017.710Published:
16 Dec 2016 / DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2016.703Published: