IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v53y2001i5p669-677.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Taking responsibility for cancer treatment

Author

Listed:
  • Deadman, J. M.
  • Leinster, S. J.
  • Owens, R. G.
  • Dewey, M. E.
  • Slade, P. D.

Abstract

One hundred and fourteen consecutive patients with early breast cancer were entered into a study on the psychological effects of involvement in treatment choice. All women were offered counselling throughout. One group of women (n=34), were advised to undergo mastectomy, due to the nature or position of the tumour. These women fared less well psychologically when compared on a battery of measures, before and after surgery, with women who were involved in choosing their own treatment (n=80). The latter group itself was randomly allocated into two groups for taking explicit responsibility for treatment choice, using a double-blind procedure. These were a Patient Decision Group (n=41) and a Surgeon Decision Group (n=39). Results support the hypothesis that over and above the benefits of receiving their preferred treatment, women can further benefit from taking explicit responsibility for their treatment choice.

Suggested Citation

  • Deadman, J. M. & Leinster, S. J. & Owens, R. G. & Dewey, M. E. & Slade, P. D., 2001. "Taking responsibility for cancer treatment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 53(5), pages 669-677, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:53:y:2001:i:5:p:669-677
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(00)00369-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. O' Donnell, Máire & Monz, Brigitta & Hunskaar, Steinar, 2007. "General preferences for involvement in treatment decision making among European women with urinary incontinence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(9), pages 1914-1924, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:53:y:2001:i:5:p:669-677. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.