Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Keywords
- mental health (2) (remove)
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.
Objective
Problem-drinking among university students is common and poses serious health-related risks. Therefore, identifying and addressing associated factors is important.
Participants and methods
A large cross-sectional online-survey with 12,914 university students from Berlin was conducted from November 2016 to August 2017. Relative-risk- and correlation-analysis was used to identify factors associated with problem-drinking and regular heavy-drinking. Independent t-tests compared impulsivity and personality traits, chi-square-tests compared drinking motives between risk- and non-risk-drinkers.
Results
Male gender, tobacco-smoking, illegal substance use, impulsivity and various sociodemographic and psychosocial variables were significantly related to problem/heavy-drinking. Extraversion was a risk, conscientiousness and agreeableness were protective factors. Drinking-motives did not differ significantly between risk- and non-risk-drinkers. Generally, the main drinking-motives were to feel elated, relax and social purposes.
Conclusion
The identified markers and related problem behaviors may serve as a tool to enhance the identification of student subgroups at risk for problem/heavy-drinking, and hence improve targeted health-intervention-programs.