Security of attachment is described as an inner resource that may also facilitate the adaptation of individuals during critical life adversity, even when facing end-stage illness and death. This study assessed the relation between attachment styles, patient-caregiver reciprocal empathy, and patient-physician working alliance, in the terminal phase of an oncological disease. We hypothesized that the attachment security of patients, as measured by the Relationship Questionnaire (RQ), is related to the reciprocal empathy with the caregiver, as measured by the Perception of Partner Empathy (PPE) questionnaire, and to the working alliance with the physician, as measured by the Working Alliance Inventory-Short Form (WAI-S). Thirty-seven end-stage cancer patients, their caregivers, and physicians participated in the study. The PPE and WAI-S were administered twice: immediately after the hospice recovery and a week later. Results showed a significant improvement in patient-caregiver empathy and in patient-physician alliance after a week at the hospice. Findings indicated that the patients' attachment style influenced their perception of reciprocal empathy with the caregiver and the working alliance with the physician. Patients with a secure attachment had a greater capacity to show empathic closeness with their caregivers and enjoyed a better working alliance with their physicians. Caregivers' attachment security, otherwise, did not show the same influence on empathy and alliance. Findings support the hypothesis that patients' attachment security plays a crucial role in the relation with their own caregiver and with the physician, even at the terminal phase. Theoretical and clinical implications of these findings are explored in the discussion.

Reciprocal Empathy and Working Alliance in Terminal Oncological Illness: The Crucial Role of Patients’ Attachment Style

CALVO, VINCENZO;PALMIERI, ARIANNA;BIANCO, FRANCESCA;Johann R. Kleinbub
2014

Abstract

Security of attachment is described as an inner resource that may also facilitate the adaptation of individuals during critical life adversity, even when facing end-stage illness and death. This study assessed the relation between attachment styles, patient-caregiver reciprocal empathy, and patient-physician working alliance, in the terminal phase of an oncological disease. We hypothesized that the attachment security of patients, as measured by the Relationship Questionnaire (RQ), is related to the reciprocal empathy with the caregiver, as measured by the Perception of Partner Empathy (PPE) questionnaire, and to the working alliance with the physician, as measured by the Working Alliance Inventory-Short Form (WAI-S). Thirty-seven end-stage cancer patients, their caregivers, and physicians participated in the study. The PPE and WAI-S were administered twice: immediately after the hospice recovery and a week later. Results showed a significant improvement in patient-caregiver empathy and in patient-physician alliance after a week at the hospice. Findings indicated that the patients' attachment style influenced their perception of reciprocal empathy with the caregiver and the working alliance with the physician. Patients with a secure attachment had a greater capacity to show empathic closeness with their caregivers and enjoyed a better working alliance with their physicians. Caregivers' attachment security, otherwise, did not show the same influence on empathy and alliance. Findings support the hypothesis that patients' attachment security plays a crucial role in the relation with their own caregiver and with the physician, even at the terminal phase. Theoretical and clinical implications of these findings are explored in the discussion.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11577/3002299
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 8
  • Scopus 19
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 17
social impact