Psycho-Oncologie

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 140–146

Les enjeux de la communication médecin-patient et l’importance des caractéristiques psychologiques du médecin

Article Original / Original Article

Résumé

L’article se propose de rappeler que la médecine reste toujours à la fois une science exacte objective et une science subjective interpersonnelle humaine. En effet, quelle que soit l’explosion des découvertes scientifiques et l’organisation rationnelle des connaissances pour mettre en évidence un diagnostic, un pronostic et un traitement, ces découvertes scientifiques concernant les maladies doivent être mises au service du malade dans le cadre de la relation médecin-malade. Cette relation exige un mode de communication réciproque efficace et cohérent ne niant pas toute la dimension subjective des deux sujets en présence dans leur perception cognitive et émotionnelle du problème physiologique, en particulier la maladie cancéreuse. Une fois cette prise de conscience réalisée par le monde médical, se pose la question de la formation la plus adéquate pour améliorer le style de communication que nous adoptons avec nos patients. L’enjeu est d’importance, car nous savons qu’une communication claire et efficace, impliquant des questions ouvertes et des questions directives ouvertes, une écoute du patient, une reconnaissance de ses réactions émotionnelles et de ses attentes, a de nombreux effets positifs. Elle nous permet d’avoir une évaluation correcte de l’état du patient et donc de poser le diagnostic le meilleur possible. Elle permet aussi un climat de confiance garant d’une adhésion au traitement et d’une diminution de notre propre stress professionnel. La question des prédicteurs de l’acquisition de compétences en communication par les médecins a fait l’objet d’études empiriques. Via le concept de « lieu de contrôle » (LOC), l’article montrera que les médecins eux-mêmes ne sont pas tous les mêmes et ne sont pas égaux devant une formation à la communication. La reconnaissance de nos propres caractéristiques psychologiques nous permettra d’accroître l’efficacité des programmes de formation à la communication.

Mots clés

Communication médecin-patient Vécu subjectif du lieu de contrôle Caractéristiques psychologiques du médecin 

Challenges in physician-patient communication and physicians psychological characteristics

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to remind that medicine is both an objective and a subjective interpersonal human science. Every scientific and medical progress as regards a disease diagnosis, treatment or prognosis has to be in the service of the patient in the frame of his relationship with his physician. Today, we know that this relationship is underlain by an effective and coherent reciprocal communication that acknowledges the subjectivity of both the patient and the physician, in their cognitive and emotional perception of the physiological problem. From this general point of view, arises the question of the best way to improve communication between physicians and patients suffering from cancer. This is crucial because we know today that an effective and a high-performance communication that implies assessments using both open and open directive questions, listening to and acknowledging patient’s emotional reactions and expectations could have numerous positive effects. For physicians, this communication allows having an effective assessment of patient’s state and breaking the diagnosis more appropriately. Moreover, this communication allows establishing a climate of trust able to promote patient adherence to treatment and to reduce health care professional stress. The question of predicting the acquisition of such effective communication skills by physicians has been the heart of empirical studies. Through the concept of “locus of control” (LOC), this paper shows that physicians are different when they learn communication skills. Results of this paper highlight that physicians’ acknowledgement of their own psychological characteristics could improve communication skills training programs’ effectiveness.

Keywords

Communication physician-patient Locus of control Psychological characteristics of physicians 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Références

  1. 1.
    Ong LM (1995) Doctor-patient communication: a review of the literature. Soc Sci Med 7:903–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Libert Y (2001) Improving doctor’s communication skills in oncology: review and future perspectives. Bull Cancer 12:1167–1176Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Libert Y (2006) Stakes, aims and specificities of the physician-patient communication in cancer care: state-of-the-art and perspectives. Bull Cancer 4:357–362Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Libert Y (2007) Physicians are different when they learn communication skills: influence of the locus of control. Psychooncology 6:553–562Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Montgomery C, Lydon A, Lloyd K (1999) Psychological distress among cancer patients and informed consent. J Psychosom Res 3:241–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Degner LF (1997) Information needs and decisional preferences in women with breast cancer. JAMA 277(18):1485–1492PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davidson JR, Brundage MD, Feldman-Stewart D (1999) Lung cancer treatment decisions: patients’ desires for participation and information. Psychooncology 6:511–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maguire P (1996) Helping cancer patients disclose their concerns. Eur J Cancer 32A(1):78–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parle M, Maguire P, Heaven C (1997) The development of a training model to improve health professionals’ skills, self-efficacy and outcome expectancies when communicating with cancer patients. Soc Sci Med 44(2):231–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marvel MK (1999) Soliciting the patient’s agenda: have we improved? JAMA 3:283–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Langewitz W (2002) Spontaneous talking time at start of consultation in outpatient clinic: cohort study. BMJ 325(7366):682–683PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jenkins V, Fallowfield L, Saul J (2001) Information needs of patients with cancer: results from a large study in UK cancer centres. Br J Cancer 1:48–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gattellari M (2002) When the treatment goal is not cure: are cancer patients equipped to make informed decisions? J Clin Oncol 2:503–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Butow PN (1997) The dynamics of change: cancer patients’ preferences for information, involvement and support. Ann Oncol 9:857–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bragard I (2006) Teaching communication and stress management skills to junior physicians dealing with cancer patients: a Belgian interuniversity curriculum. Support Care Cancer 5:454–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maguire P, Pitceathly C (2002) Key communication skills and how to acquire them. BMJ 325(7366):697–700PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Delvaux N (2005) Physicians’ communication with a cancer patient and a relative: a randomized study assessing the efficacy of consolidation workshops. Cancer 11:2397–2411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Razavi D (2003) How to optimize physicians’ communication skills in cancer care: results of a randomized study assessing the usefulness of post-training consolidation workshops. J Clin Oncol 16:3141–3149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fellowes D, Wilkinson S, Moore P (2004) Communication skills training for health care professionals working with cancer patients, their families and/or carers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD003751Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Merckaert I, Libert Y, Razavi D (2005) Communication skills training in cancer care: where are we and where are we going? Curr Opin Oncol 4:319–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shilling V, Jenkins V, Fallowfield L (2003) Factors affecting patient and clinician satisfaction with the clinical consultation: can communication skills training for clinicians improve satisfaction? Psychooncology 6:599–611Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rotter JB (1966) Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol Monogr 1:1–28Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Klein J, Keller J (1990) Influence of student ability, locus of control and type of instructional control on performance and confidence. J Educ Res 83:140–146Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Colquitt JA, LePine JA, Noe RA (2000) Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: a meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. J Appl Psychol 5:678–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Haines P, McGrath P, Pirot M (1980) Expectations and persistence: an experimental comparison of Bandura and Rotter. Soc Behav Pers 8:193–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Altmann H, Arambasich L (1982) A study of locus of control with adult students. Can Couns 16:97–101Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Johnson AH, Brock CD, Hueston WH (2004) Resident physicians who continue Balint training: a longitudinal study 1982–1999, part II. Fam Med 4:234–235Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wigen K, Holen A, Ellingsen O (2003) Predicting academic success by group behaviour in PBL. Med Teach 1:32–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gadzella B (1997) Predicting students as deep and shallow processors of information. Percept Mot Skills 84:875–881Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Drew P, Watkins D (1998) Affective variables, learning approaches and academic achievement: a causal modelling investigation with Hong Kong tertiary students. Br J Educ Psychol 68:173–188Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Janssen T, Carton J (1999) The effects of locus of control and task difficulty on procrastination. J Genet Psychol 160:436–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ofori R, Charlton JP (2002) A path model of factors influencing the academic performance of nursing students. J Adv Nurs 5:507–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Judge TA (2002) Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? J Pers Soc Psychol 3:693–710Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cohen P, Sheposh J, Hillix W (1979) Situational and personality influences on risk-taking behavior: effects of task, sex and locus of control. Acad Psychol Bull 1:63–67Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Verlag France 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Unité de psycho-oncologie, institut Jules-BordetULBBruxellesBelgique
  2. 2.Service de médecine psychosomatique, clinique universitaire de Mont-GodinneUCLYvoirBelgique

Personalised recommendations