Premium
Cancer Patient and Staff Perceptions of Caring vs Clinical Care
Author(s) -
WidmarkPetersson Viveca,
Essen Louise,
Lindman Eva,
Sjödén PerOlow
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
scandinavian journal of caring sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.678
H-Index - 66
eISSN - 1471-6712
pISSN - 0283-9318
DOI - 10.1111/j.1471-6712.1996.tb00341.x
Subject(s) - affect (linguistics) , cognition , psychology , perception , rank (graph theory) , medicine , nursing , family medicine , psychiatry , mathematics , communication , combinatorics , neuroscience
Two questions were investigated: (1) whether cancer patients (n = 72) and staff (n = 63) have different cognitive representations of the concepts ‘caring’ (in Swedish: omvårdnad) and ‘clinical care’ (in Swedish: vård), and (2) whether two different wordings of the response categories used by patients and staff to rank the perceived importance of 50 specific caring behaviors (‘Old’ response format: ‘of importance’—‘of no importance’ vs ‘New’ format: ‘more or less important’) in relation to these concepts would produce different results. A Swedish questionnaire version of the CARE‐Q instrument was used. Participants were randomized to one of four research conditions: (1) Caring/Old, (2) Caring/New, (3) Clinical care/Old, and (4) Clinical care/New, and asked to rank the importance of the 50 CARE‐Q behaviors for that specific concept/response format combination. Results demonstrated that response formats did not affect patient or staff answers. Neither group did to any great extent value CARE‐Q behaviors differently when regarded as examples of ‘caring’ vs ‘clinical care’. The assumption that different cognitive representations of the concepts or that a specific wording of response categories had affected previous CARE‐Q results was not substantiated.