A pathway linking patient participation in cancer consultations to pain control.

OBJECTIVE: To test a pathway through which a tailored, pain management education-coaching intervention could contribute to better cancer pain control through the effects of patients' communication about pain on physician prescribing of pain medication. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial that tested the effects of a tailored education-coaching intervention on pain control for patients with advanced cancer. The current analysis focused on a subset of the patients (n = 135) who agreed to have their consultations audio-recorded. Patients' active communication about pain (e.g., expressing questions, concerns, and preferences about pain-related issues) was coded from audio-recordings. Change in pain medication was measured by patient self-report. Improvement in pain control was scored as the difference between baseline pain score and pain reported at 6 weeks. RESULTS: Patients' pain-related communication was a significant predictor of patient-reported changes in physician prescribing of pain medication (p < .0001) and mediated the effect of baseline pain on medication change. Other predictors of change in pain medication were age (younger) and having participated in the intervention (as opposed to usual care). Of the patients reporting adjustment in pain medications, 49% experienced better pain control compared with only 27% of patients reporting no change in pain management (p < .02). CONCLUSIONS: Cancer patients who ask questions, express concerns, and state preferences about pain-related matters can prompt physicians to change their pain management regimen, which in turn may lead to better pain control. Future research should model pathways through which clinician-patient communication can lead to better cancer outcomes.

Improving physician-patient communication about cancer pain with a tailored education-coaching intervention.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the effect of a theoretically grounded, tailored education-coaching intervention to help patients more effectively discuss their pain-related questions, concerns, and preferences with physicians. METHODS: Grounded in social-cognitive and communication theory, a tailored education-coaching (TEC) intervention was developed to help patients learn pain management and communication skills. In a RCT, 148 cancer patients agreed to have their consultations audio-recorded and were assigned to the intervention or a control group. The recordings were used to code for patients' questions, acts of assertiveness, and expressed concerns and to rate the quality of physicians' communication. RESULTS: Patients in the TEC group discussed their pain concerns more than did patients in the control group. More active patients also had more baseline pain and interacted with physicians using participatory decision-making. Ratings of physicians' information about pain were higher when patients talked more about their pain concerns. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates the efficacy of a theoretically grounded, coaching intervention to help cancer patients talk about pain control. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Coaching interventions can be effective resources for helping cancer patients communicate about their pain concerns if they are theoretically grounded, can be integrated within clinical routines, and lead to improve health outcomes.

Marketing therapeutic precision: Potential facilitators and barriers to adoption of n-of-1 trials.

BACKGROUND: N-of-1 trials may enhance therapeutic precision by predicting the long-term effectiveness of medical treatment on an individual basis. However, the n-of-1 approach has gained little traction with the clinical community. To learn why, we interviewed physicians and patients, focusing on the perceived benefits and drawbacks of n-of-1 trials and factors influencing these perceptions. METHODS: We convened focus groups and individual interviews with 21 physicians and 32 patients, most with chronic conditions. The study employed qualitative interview methods to explore and analyze subjects' views of n-of-1 trials. Analysis involved an iterative process of review and data abstraction after specific topics for coding, definitions of codes, and strategies for abstraction had been established. Previously defined domains and topics were then expanded and enriched, with key themes emerging during the analytic process. RESULTS: Physicians and patients remarked on 4 salient aspects of n-of-1 trials: scientific, relational, clinical, and logistical. Neither physicians nor patients were highly familiar with the n-of-1 concept, but both groups readily grasped the fundamental logic and appreciated the potential scientific benefits. Physicians saw n-of-1 trials as promoting an exciting but possibly threatening paradigm shift in the doctor-patient relationship, while patients viewed the relational consequences as modest. The best n-of-1 candidates were felt to be proactive, cognitively intact, reliable, motivated, and engaged in a trusting physician-patient relationship. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers interested in expanding the appeal of n-of-1 trials will need to address these concerns by carefully explaining the approach, emphasizing the benefits, and minimizing the effort required of doctors and patients.