Megan Johnson Shen1,2, Heidi A Hamann3, Anna J Thomas4, Jamie S Ostroff5. 1. Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, 525 East 68th St., Box 39, New York, NY, 10065, USA. mes2050@med.cornell.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. mes2050@med.cornell.edu. 3. Department of Psychology and Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. 4. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and Harold C, Simmons Cancer Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 5. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The majority (95 %) of lung cancer patients report stigma, with 48 % of lung cancer patients specifically reporting feeling stigmatized by their medical providers. Typically associated with the causal link to smoking and the historically poor prognosis, lung cancer stigma can be seen as a risk factor for poor psychosocial and medical outcomes in the context of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment. Thus, modifiable targets for lung cancer stigma-reducing interventions are needed. The present study sought to test the hypothesis that good patient-provider communication is associated with lower levels of lung cancer stigma. METHODS: Lung cancer patients (n = 231) across varying stages of disease participated in a cross-sectional, multisite study designed to understand lung cancer stigma. Patients completed several survey measures, including demographic and clinical characteristics, a measure of patient-provider communication (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Program or CAHPS), and a measure of lung cancer stigma (Cataldo Lung Cancer Stigma Scale). RESULTS: As hypothesized, results indicated that good patient-provider communication was associated with lower levels of lung cancer stigma (r = -0.18, p < 0.05). These results remained significant, even when controlling for relevant demographic and clinical characteristics (Stan. β = -0.15, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that good patient-provider communication is associated with lower levels of lung cancer stigma, suggesting that improving patient-provider communication may be a good intervention target for reducing lung cancer stigma.
PURPOSE: The majority (95 %) of lung cancer patients report stigma, with 48 % of lung cancer patients specifically reporting feeling stigmatized by their medical providers. Typically associated with the causal link to smoking and the historically poor prognosis, lung cancer stigma can be seen as a risk factor for poor psychosocial and medical outcomes in the context of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment. Thus, modifiable targets for lung cancer stigma-reducing interventions are needed. The present study sought to test the hypothesis that good patient-provider communication is associated with lower levels of lung cancer stigma. METHODS: Lung cancer patients (n = 231) across varying stages of disease participated in a cross-sectional, multisite study designed to understand lung cancer stigma. Patients completed several survey measures, including demographic and clinical characteristics, a measure of patient-provider communication (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Program or CAHPS), and a measure of lung cancer stigma (Cataldo Lung Cancer Stigma Scale). RESULTS: As hypothesized, results indicated that good patient-provider communication was associated with lower levels of lung cancer stigma (r = -0.18, p < 0.05). These results remained significant, even when controlling for relevant demographic and clinical characteristics (Stan. β = -0.15, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that good patient-provider communication is associated with lower levels of lung cancer stigma, suggesting that improving patient-provider communication may be a good intervention target for reducing lung cancer stigma.
Entities:
Keywords:
Lung cancer; Lung cancer stigma; Patient-provider communication
Authors: Janine K Cataldo; Robert Slaughter; Thierry M Jahan; Voranan L Pongquan; Won Ju Hwang Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Noelle K LoConte; Nicole M Else-Quest; Jens Eickhoff; Janet Hyde; Joan H Schiller Journal: Clin Lung Cancer Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: Heidi A Hamann; Ju-Whei Lee; Joan H Schiller; Leora Horn; Lynne I Wagner; Victor Tsu-Shih Chang; Michael J Fisch Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Jamie S Ostroff; Kristen E Riley; Megan J Shen; Thomas M Atkinson; Timothy J Williamson; Heidi A Hamann Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Heidi A Hamann; Elizabeth S Ver Hoeve; Lisa Carter-Harris; Jamie L Studts; Jamie S Ostroff Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2018-05-23 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Timothy J Williamson; Jamie S Ostroff; Chloé M Martin; Smita C Banerjee; Carma L Bylund; Heidi A Hamann; Megan Johnson Shen Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2020-08-11