Trust in Physician in Relation to Blame, Regret, and Depressive Symptoms Among Women with a Breast Cancer Experience
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Following a diagnosis of breast cancer women experience considerable distress and often present with elevated symptoms of depression. A woman's relationship with her oncologist, and particularly trust in the physician, might influence depressive symptoms, as well as emotional and cognitive reactions to medical decisions made concerning treatment. To assess these relationships, women currently undergoing treatment for breast cancer (n = 40) and women who had previously been treated for breast cancer (n = 74) were asked about (1) trust in their physician, (2) who they blamed for negative events during treatment, (3) who made the treatment decisions, (4) regret, and (5) depressive symptoms. As well, community participants (n = 146) without breast cancer were asked about trust in their physician, levels of depression, and questions regarding blame if they hypothetically had breast cancer. Depression was greatest among women in treatment, and trust in physician was greatest among women posttreatment. However, trust in physician was neither related to depressive symptoms, decision making, nor responsibility for presence of metastases/relapse. Paradoxically, greater trust in physician was related to increased blame of the doctor for other negative events that had occurred. Furthermore, depressive scores were higher among women who blamed their doctor for negative events in comparison to women who ascribed blame to no one. As well, individuals who blamed themselves for negative events reported greater regret than individuals who blamed no one. Thus, though a woman may not hold her physician directly responsible for health outcomes, this relationship may be important to consider in other aspects of her psychological well-being.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle