• 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2021-03
  • br Data were analyzed statistically using


    Data were analyzed statistically using the SPSS ver20 (Field, 2009). Demographic and clinical characteristics were presented as frequencies
    (N) and proportions (%). The QONCS and ICS subscales were calculated as the mean score of the associated items according to the scale de-velopers' guidelines (Charalambous et al., 2016). Descriptive statistics (Mean, Standard Deviation, Standard Error, Minimum, Max) were presented for each subscale. Associations between the subscales were analyzed using the Pearson correlation coefficient. To adjust for the joint association of the QONCS subscales to ICSA and ICSB subscales with the QONCS subscales, two separate linear regressions models were fitted. Internal consistency reliability was assessed by using the Cron-bach's alpha coefficient.
    2.10. Ethical considerations
    The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Cyprus University of Technology, the Bioethics Committee of Cyprus and the hospital directors (Ministry of Health 0020/2012, 3.28.37), in com-pliance to National law and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association, 2013).  European Journal of Oncology Nursing 41 (2019) 33–40
    Table 1
    Demographic characteristics of the participants.
    Demographics Category Ν %
    Secondary education (high- 67 45%
    Tertiary education 47 31%
    Family status Married 107 71%
    Live With Somebody 4 3%
    Separated 4 3%
    Divorced 5 3%
    Single, Never Being Married 11 7% Place of residence Nicosia 42 28%
    Ammochostos 12 8% How important is individualized care Very important 93 62% for you Important 41 27%
    Somewhat important 6 4%
    Not very important 5 3%
    Not at all important 1 1%
    3. Results
    3.1. Patients demographic characteritics
    More than half of the participants were male (57%). One third of the participants were 51–60 years old (31%) and one fourth was 61–70 years old (25%). Almost half of the participants had secondary educa-tion (45%). One third of them had tertiary education (31%) and the rest had only primary education (24%). Most of the participants were married (71%). Most of the participants believe that 497223-25-3 individualized care is very important (62%) or important (27%) (Table 1).
    A wide variety of cancer diagnoses were included in the sample. The most frequent cancer diagnosis for the participants was lung cancer (17%), followed by breast cancer (13%). Regarding treatment, most of the participants had cancer treatment (88,7%). Very few were treated with surgical methods for excision of a tumor (4,7%) or nursing inter-ventions (3,3%). Most of the participants were treated for 2–4 days (81%)(Table 2).
    Most of the participants were admitted in the hospital in order to have oncological treatment (73,3%). Very few were admitted for the management of symptoms (or treatment-induced side effects) related to treatments (18,7%) or postoperative care (7,3%). The majority of the participants had a scheduled admission (81%)(Table 3).
    Table 2
    Type and days of treatment for the participants.
    Ν % Type of treatment
    Cancer treatment 133 88,7% Surgical methods for excision of a tumor 7 4,7% Nursing interventions 5 3,3% Days of treatment
    M. Kousoulou, et al.
    Table 3
    Reason for admission of the participants and admission type.
    Ν % Reason for admission
    Provision of treatment 110 73,3% Management of symptoms related to treatments 28 18,7% Postoperative care 11 7,3% Admission type
    Planned Admission 121 81% Emergency Admission 29 19%
    Fig. 1. ICS.A - The Support of Individuality: Mean level of ICS.A scores across the total scale and the three subscales. Error bars represent +standard devia-tion (SD).
    3.2. Individualized oncology nursing care
    The first question explored the extent to which nursing care was individualized, according to patients with cancer. Based on data ana-lysis lymphocytes was found that the level of support of patients’ individuality (ICS-A) was at 3.4 (SD = 0.9). This level of support is considered to be of a medium level compared to preceding studies (e.g. Suhonen et al., 2018). Higher levels of support were recorded for clinical situations (mean = 3.68, SD = 1.00), followed by decision control (mean = 3.34. SD = 1.14) and personal life situations (mean = 3.05. SD = 1.27) (Fig. 1).
    3.2.1. Internal consistency reliability For the ICS.A scale, the Cronhach's alpha coefficient was found good
    Fig. 2. ICS.B - The Individuality in Care Received: Mean level of ICS.B scores across the total scale and the three subscales. Error bars represent +standard deviation (SD).  European Journal of Oncology Nursing 41 (2019) 33–40
    for all the subscales and the total scale, ranging from 0.81 to 0.93. Likewise, for the ICS.B scale Cronhach's alpha coefficient was also found good for all the subscales and the scale, ranging from 0.78 to 0.93.