Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 182

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measuring therapeutic alliance between oncologists and patients with advanced cancer: The Human Connection Scale

Open access
Mack, Jennifer W., Block, Susan D., Nilsson, Matthew, Wright, Alexi, Trice, Elizabeth, Friedlander, Robert, Paulk, Elizabeth, Prigerson, Holly G.·2009·Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients consider their human connection with a physician an important aspect of end‐of‐life (EOL) care. In this study, the authors sought to develop and validate a measure of therapeutic alliance between patients with advanced cancer and their physicians and to evaluate the effects of therapeutic alliance on EOL experiences and care. METHODS: The Human Connection (THC) scale was developed to measure the extent to which patients felt a sense of mutual understanding, caring, and trust with their physicians. The scale was administered to 217 patients with advanced cancer along with measures of attributes that have been related hypothetically to therapeutic alliance, including emotional acceptance of terminal illness. EOL outcomes in 90 patients who died during the study also were examined. RESULTS: The 16‐item THC questionnaire was consistent internally (Cronbach α = .90) and valid based on its expected positive association with emotional acceptance of terminal illness (r = .31; P < .0001). THC scores were related inversely to symptom burden (r = −.19; P = .006), functional status (Karnofsky performance status; r = .22; P = .001), and mental illness (THC score: 50.69 for patients with any Diagnostic and Statistical Manual [DSM] diagnosis vs 55.22 for patients with no DSM diagnosis; P = .03). THC scores were not associated significantly with EOL discussions (P = .68). Among the patients who died, EOL intensive care unit (ICU) care was associated inversely with therapeutic alliance (THC score: 46.5 for patients who received ICU care vs 55.5 for patients without ICU care; P = .002), so that patients with higher THC scores were less likely to spend time in the ICU during the last week of life. CONCLUSIONS: The THC scale is a valid and reliable measure of therapeutic alliance between patients with advanced cancer and their physicians. In addition, there was no evidence to suggest that EOL discussions harm patients' therapeutic alliance. A strong therapeutic alliance was associated with emotional acceptance of a terminal illness and with decreased ICU care at the EOL among patients with advanced cancer. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cncr.24360

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 182

Metadata

Authors
Mack, J. W., Block, S. D., Nilsson, M., Wright, A., Trice, E., Friedlander, R., Paulk, E., & Prigerson, H. G.
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-05-29
Volume
115
Issue
14
Pages
3302-3311
ISSN
  • 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0142
OpenAlex
W2015569008
Cited by
182
References
7
FWCI
4.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring therapeutic alliance between oncologists and patients with advanced cancer: The Human Connection Scale. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cncr.24360
The paper
Mack, J. W., Block, S. D., Nilsson, M., Wright, A., Trice, E., Friedlander, R., Paulk, E., & Prigerson, H. G. (2009). Measuring therapeutic alliance between oncologists and patients with advanced cancer: The Human Connection Scale. Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24360

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.