Listening in on difficult conversations: an observational, multi-center investigation of real-time conversations in medical oncology

BMC Cancer

Brittany C Kimball²  Katherine M James²  Kathleen J Yost⁷  Cara A Fernandez⁸  Ashok Kumbamu²  Aaron L Leppin²  Marguerite E Robinson²  Gail Geller⁵  Debra L Roter⁵  Susan M Larson⁵  Heinz-Josef Lenz⁹  Agustin A Garcia⁹  Clarence H Braddock⁴  Aminah Jatoi³  María Luisa Zúñiga de Nuncio¹  Victor M Montori⁸  Barbara A Koenig⁶  Jon C Tilburt⁸ 

[1] Division of Global Public Health, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

[2] Biomedical Ethics Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

[3] Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

[4] Division of General Internal Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

[5] Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA

[6] Institute for Health and Aging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

[7] Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

[8] Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

[9] Department of Medicine, University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA

关键词: Physician-patient communication;    Oncology;    Cancer;   

Others  :  1079537
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2407-13-455

 received in 2013-02-04, accepted in 2013-09-26,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The quality of communication in medical care has been shown to influence health outcomes. Cancer patients, a highly diverse population, communicate with their clinical care team in diverse ways over the course of their care trajectory. Whether that communication happens and how effective it is may relate to a variety of factors including the type of cancer and the patient’s position on the cancer care continuum. Yet, many of the routine needs of cancer patients after initial cancer treatment are often not addressed adequately. Our goal is to identify areas of strength and areas for improvement in cancer communication by investigating real-time cancer consultations in a cross section of patient-clinician interactions at diverse study sites.

Methods/design

In this paper we describe the rationale and approach for an ongoing observational study involving three institutions that will utilize quantitative and qualitative methods and employ a short-term longitudinal, prospective follow-up component to investigate decision-making, key topics, and clinician-patient-companion communication dynamics in clinical oncology.

Discussion

Through a comprehensive, real-time approach, we hope to provide the fundamental groundwork from which to promote improved patient-centered communication in cancer care.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Kimball et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Society AC: Cancer facts & figures 2012. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2012.
• [2]Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T: Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med 1997, 44(5):681-692.
• [3]Epstein R, Street RJ: Patient-centered communication in cancer care: promoting healing and reducing suffering. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, NIH Publication No. 07–6225; 2007.
• [4]Legare F, Ratte S, Gravel K, Graham ID: Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals' perceptions. Patient education and counseling 2008, 73(3):526-535.
• [5]Stewart M, Brown JB, Donner A, McWhinney IR, Oates J, Weston WW, Jordan J: The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes. J Fam Pract 2000, 49(9):796-804.
• [6]Thorne SE, Bultz BD, Baile WF: Is there a cost to poor communication in cancer care?: a critical review of the literature. Psychooncology 2005, 14(10):875-884.
• [7]Institute of Medicine: From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006.
• [8]Smith Q, Street RJ, Volk R, Fordis M: Differing levels of clinical evidence: exploring communication challenges in shared decision-making. Med Care Res Rev 2013, 70:3-13.
• [9]Munoz FA, Servin AE, Kozo J, Lam M, Zuniga ML: A binational comparison of HIV provider attitudes towards the use of complementary and alternative medicine among HIV-positive latino patients receiving care in the US-mexico border region. AIDS Care 2012, 25(8):990-997.
• [10]Zuniga ML, Blanco E, Martinez P, Strathdee SA, Gifford AL: Perceptions of barriers and facilitators to participation in clinical trials in HIV-positive latinas: a pilot study. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2007, 16(9):1322-1330.
• [11]McCormack LA, Treiman K, Rupert D, Williams-Piehota P, Nadler E, Arora NK, Lawrence W, Street RL Jr: Measuring patient-centered communication in cancer care: a literature review and the development of a systematic approach. Soc Sci Med 2011, 72(7):1085-1095.
• [12]Kantsiper M, McDonald EL, Geller G, Shockney L, Snyder C, Wolff AC: Transitioning to breast cancer survivorship: perspectives of patients, cancer specialists, and primary care providers. J Gen Intern Med 2009, 24(Suppl 2):S459-466.
• [13]Siminoff LA, Step MM: A communication model of shared decision making: accounting for cancer treatment decisions. Health Psychol 2005, 24(4 Suppl):S99-S105.
• [14]Pollak KI, Arnold RM, Jeffreys AS, Alexander SC, Olsen MK, Abernethy AP, Sugg Skinner C, Rodriguez KL, Tulsky JA: Oncologist communication about emotion during visits with patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007, 25(36):5748-5752.
• [15]Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P: The control preferences scale. Can J Nurs Res 1997, 29(3):21-43.
• [16]Dyer N, Sorra JS, Smith SA, Cleary PD, Hays RD: Psychometric properties of the consumer assessment of healthcare providers and systems (CAHPS(R)) clinician and group adult visit survey. Med Care 2012, 50(Suppl):S28-34.
• [17]Grunberg SM, Groshen S, Steingass S, Zaretsky S, Meyerowitz B: Comparison of conditional quality of life terminology and visual analogue scale measurements. Qual Life Res 1996, 5(1):65-72.
• [18]Kriston L, Scholl I, Holzel L, Simon D, Loh A, Harter M: The 9-item shared decision making questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient education and counseling 2010, 80(1):94-99.
• [19]Chew LD, Bradley KA, Boyko EJ: Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy. Fam Med 2004, 36(8):588-594.
• [20]Chew LD, Griffin JM, Partin MR, Noorbaloochi S, Grill JP, Snyder A, Bradley KA, Nugent SM, Baines AD, Vanryn M: Validation of screening questions for limited health literacy in a large VA outpatient population. J Gen Intern Med 2008, 23(5):561-566.
• [21]Sloan J, Symonds T, Vargas-Chanes D, Fridley B: Practical guidelines for assessing the clinical significance of health-related quality of life changes within clinical trials. Drug Inf J 2003, 37:23-31.
• [22]Kaufman S: And a time to Die: How american hospitals shape the End of life. New York: Scribner; 2005.
• [23]Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG: Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009, 42(2):377-381.
• [24]Ong LM, Visser MR, Kruyver IP, Bensing JM, van den Brink-Muinen A, Stouthard JM, Lammes FB, de Haes JC: The roter interaction analysis system (RIAS) in oncological consultations: psychometric properties. Psychooncology 1998, 7(5):387-401.
• [25]Roter D, Larson S: The Roter interaction analysis system (RIAS): utility and flexibility for analysis of medical interactions. Patient education and counseling 2002, 46(4):243-251.
• [26]Roter D: The enduring and evolving nature of the patient-physician relationship. Patient education and counseling 2000, 39(1):5-15.
• [27]Ford S, Fallowfield L, Lewis S: Doctor-patient interactions in oncology. Soc Sci Med 1996, 42(11):1511-1519.
• [28]Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N: Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ 2000, 320(7227):114-116.
• [29]Sobo E: Culture and meaning in health services research: A practical field guide. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, Inc; 2009.
• [30]Guba E, Lincoln Y: Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Handbook of qualitative research. Edited by Denzin N, Lincoln Y. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1994:105-117.
• [31]Hull S, Taylor H, Kass N: Qualitative research. In Methods in medical ethics. Edited by Sugarman J, Sulmasy D. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press; 2001:146-168.
• [32]Marshal P, Koenig B: Anthropology and bioethics. In Encyclopedia of bioethics. 3rd edition. Edited by Post S. New York: MacMillan; 2004:215-222.
• [33]Marshall P, Koenig B: Ethnographic methods. In Methods in medical ethics. Edited by Sugarman J, Sulmasy D. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 2010. Press
• [34]Braddock CH 3rd, Edwards KA, Hasenberg NM, Laidley TL, Levinson W: Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA 1999, 282(24):2313-2320.
• [35]Elwyn G, Edwards A, Wensing M, Hood K, Atwell C, Grol R: Shared decision making: developing the OPTION scale for measuring patient involvement. Quality & safety in health care 2003, 12(2):93-99.
• [36]Abadie R, Weymiller AJ, Tilburt J, Shah ND, Charles C, Gafni A, Montori VM: Clinician's use of the statin choice decision aid in patients with diabetes: a videographic study nested in a randomized trial. J Eval Clin Pract 2009, 15(3):492-497.
• [37]Weiss MC, Peters TJ: Measuring shared decision making in the consultation: a comparison of the OPTION and informed decision making instruments. Patient education and counseling 2008, 70(1):79-86.
• [38]Jansen AC, van Aalst-Cohen ES, Hutten BA, Buller HR, Kastelein JJ, Prins MH: Guidelines were developed for data collection from medical records for use in retrospective analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 2005, 58(3):269-274.
• [39]Coleman T, Manku-Scott T: Comparison of video-recorded consultations with those in which patients' consent is withheld. Br J Gen Pract 1998, 48(427):971-974.
• [40]Inui TS, Carter WB, Kukull WA, Haigh VH: Outcome-based doctor-patient interaction anaylsis: I. Comparison of techniques. Med Care 1982, 20(6):535-549.
• [41]Pringle M, Stewart-Evans C: Does awareness of being video recorded affect doctors' consultation behaviour? Br J Gen Pract 1990, 40(340):455-458.
• [42]Redman S, Dickinson J, Cockburn J, Hennrikus D, S-F RW: The assessment of reactivity in direct observation studies of doctor-patient interactions. Psychol Health 1989, 3:17-28.
• [43]Eremenco SL, Cella D, Arnold BJ: A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Eval Health Prof 2005, 28(2):212-232.
• [44]Hahn EA, Cella D: Health outcomes assessment in vulnerable populations: measurement challenges and recommendations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003, 84(4 Suppl 2):S35-42.
• [45]Hahn EA, Holzner B, Kemmler G, Sperner-Unterweger B, Hudgens SA, Cella D: Cross-cultural evaluation of health status using item response theory: FACT-B comparisons between Austrian and U.S. patients with breast cancer. Eval Health Prof 2005, 28(2):233-259.
• [46]Roter DL, Stewart M, Putnam SM, Lipkin M Jr, Stiles W, Inui TS: Communication patterns of primary care physicians. JAMA 1997, 277(4):350-356.