Anja K Köther1, Georg W Alpers2, Björn Büdenbender1, Maximilian Lenhart3, Maurice S Michel3, Maximilian C Kriegmair3. 1. Chair of Clinical and Biological Psychology and Psychotherapy, Department of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, Germany. 2. Chair of Clinical and Biological Psychology and Psychotherapy, Department of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, Germany. Electronic address: alpers@uni-mannheim.de. 3. Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Emotional distress can be a potential barrier to shared decision making (SDM), yet affect is typically not systematically assessed in medical consultation. We examined whether urological patients report anxiety or depression prior to a consultation and if emotional distress predicts decisional conflict thereafter. METHODS: We recruited a large sample of urological outpatients (N = 397) with a range of different diagnoses (42 % oncological). Prior to a medical consultation, patients filled in questionnaires, including the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. After the consultation, patients completed the Decisional Conflict Scale. We scored the rate of anxiety and depression in our sample and conducted multiple regression analysis to examine if emotional distress before the consultation predicts decisional conflict thereafter. RESULTS: About a quarter of patients reported values at or above cut-off for clinically relevant emotional distress. Emotional distress significantly predicted a higher degree of decisional conflict. There were no differences in emotional distress between patients with and without uro-oncological diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Emotional distress is common in urology patients - oncological as well as non-oncological. It predicts decisional conflict after physician consultation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Emotional distress should be systematically assessed in clinical consultations. This may improve the process and outcome of SDM.
OBJECTIVES: Emotional distress can be a potential barrier to shared decision making (SDM), yet affect is typically not systematically assessed in medical consultation. We examined whether urological patients report anxiety or depression prior to a consultation and if emotional distress predicts decisional conflict thereafter. METHODS: We recruited a large sample of urological outpatients (N = 397) with a range of different diagnoses (42 % oncological). Prior to a medical consultation, patients filled in questionnaires, including the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. After the consultation, patients completed the Decisional Conflict Scale. We scored the rate of anxiety and depression in our sample and conducted multiple regression analysis to examine if emotional distress before the consultation predicts decisional conflict thereafter. RESULTS: About a quarter of patients reported values at or above cut-off for clinically relevant emotional distress. Emotional distress significantly predicted a higher degree of decisional conflict. There were no differences in emotional distress between patients with and without uro-oncological diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Emotional distress is common in urology patients - oncological as well as non-oncological. It predicts decisional conflict after physician consultation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Emotional distress should be systematically assessed in clinical consultations. This may improve the process and outcome of SDM.
Authors: Ruth M Farrell; Madelyn Pierce; Christina Collart; Caitlin Craighead; Marissa Coleridge; Edward K Chien; Uma Perni; Richard Frankel; Angela Ranzini; Brownsyne Tucker Edmonds; Susannah S Rose Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2021-03-05 Impact factor: 3.242
Authors: Hayley Irusen; Henriette Burger; Pedro W Fernandez; Andre Van der Merwe; Tonya Esterhuizen; Danelo E du Plessis; Soraya Seedat Journal: Cancer Control Date: 2022 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Britta Grüne; Anja K Köther; Björn Büdenbender; Maurice S Michel; Maximilian C Kriegmair; Georg W Alpers Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Anja K Köther; Björn Büdenbender; Britta Grüne; Sonja Holbach; Johannes Huber; Nicolas von Landenberg; Julia Lenk; Thomas Martini; Maurice S Michel; Maximilian C Kriegmair; Georg W Alpers Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 4.711