Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Year of publication
- 2021 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Postprint (2) (remove)
Language
- English (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Keywords
- Obsessive-compulsive disorder (1)
- Psychodiagnostics (1)
- Psychometric properties (1)
- Screening (1)
- consultation (1)
- mental health (1)
- oncology (1)
- psycho-oncology (1)
- skills (1)
Institute
Background
Communicating a diagnosis is highly important, yet complex, especially in the context of cancer and mental disorders. The aim was to explore the communication style of an oncologist vs. psychotherapist in an online study.
Methods
Patients (N = 136: 65 cancer, 71 depression) were randomly assigned to watch a standardized video vignette with one of two communication styles (empathic vs. unempathic). Outcome measures of affectivity, information recall, communication skills, empathy and trust were applied.
Results
Regardless of diagnosis, empathic communication was associated with the perception of a significantly more empathic (p < 0.001, η2partial = 0.08) and trustworthy practitioner (p = 0.014, η2partial = 0.04) with better communication skills (p = 0.013, η2partial = 0.05). Cancer patients reported a larger decrease in positive affect (p < 0.001, η2partial = 0.15) and a larger increase in negative affect (p < 0.001, η2partial = 0.14) from pre- to post-video than depressive patients. Highly relevant information was recalled better in both groups (p < 0.001, d = 0.61–1.06).
Conclusions
The results highlight the importance of empathy while communicating both a diagnosis of cancer and a mental disorder. Further research should focus on the communication of a mental disorder in association with cancer.
Background
Despite the prevalence of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), its precise identification remains challenging. With the Zohar-Fineberg Obsessive-Compulsive Screen (ZF-OCS; 5 or 6 items), a brief instrument is widely available mainly in English. As there is a lack of empirical studies on the ZF-OCS, the aim of the present study was to translate the items into German and investigate the instrument in a nonclinical sample.
Methods
In two consecutive online surveys, n = 304 and n = 51 students participated. Besides the ZF-OCS, they answered established measures on OCD, depression, health anxiety, general anxiety and health-related well-being.
Results
Whereas internal consistency was low (α = .53–.72; ω = .55–.69), retest reliability (rt1,t2 = .89) at two weeks was high. As expected, we found high correlations with other OCD instruments (r > .61; convergent validity), and significantly weaker correlations with measures of depression (r = .39), health anxiety (r = .29), and health-related well-being (r = −.28, divergent validity). Nonetheless, the correlations with general anxiety were somewhere in between (r = .52).
Conclusions
Due to heterogeneous OCD subtypes, the ZF-OCS asks diverse questions which probably resulted in the present internal consistency. Nevertheless, the results on retest reliability and validity were promising. As for other OCD instruments, divergent validity regarding general anxiety seems problematic to establish. Even so, the ZF-OCS seems valuable for screening purposes, as it is short and easy to administer, and may facilitate initiating subsequent clinical assessment. Further studies should determine the instrument’s diagnostic accuracy.