Optimizing placebo and minimizing nocebo effects through communication: e-learning and virtual reality training development.

BACKGROUND: The effects of many treatments in healthcare are determined by factors other than the treatment itself. Patients' expectations and the relationship with their healthcare provider can significantly affect treatment outcomes and thereby play a major role in eliciting placebo and nocebo effects. We aim to develop and evaluate an innovative communication training, consisting of an e-learning and virtual reality (VR) training, for healthcare providers across all disciplines, to optimize placebo and minimize nocebo effects through healthcare provider-patient communication. The current paper describes the development, mid-term evaluation, optimization, and final evaluation of the communication training, conducted in The Netherlands. METHODS: The development of both the e-learning and the VR training consisted of four phases: 1) content and technical development, 2) mid-term evaluation by healthcare providers and placebo/communication researchers, 3) optimization of the training, and 4) final evaluation by healthcare providers. To ensure the success, applicability, authenticity, and user-friendliness of the communication training, there was ongoing structural collaboration with healthcare providers as future end users, experts in the field of placebo/communication research, and educational experts in all phases. RESULTS: Placebo/communication researchers and healthcare providers evaluated the e-learning positively (overall 7.9 on 0-10 scale) and the content was perceived as useful, accessible, and interesting. The VR training was assessed with an overall 6.9 (0-10 scale) and was evaluated as user-friendly and a safe method for practicing communication skills. Although there were some concerns regarding the authenticity of the VR training (i.e. to what extent the virtual patient reacts like a real patient), placebo and communication researchers, as well as healthcare providers, recognized the significant potential of the VR training for the future. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed an innovative and user-friendly communication training, consisting of an e-learning and VR training (2D and 3D), that can be used to teach healthcare providers how to optimize placebo effects and minimize nocebo effects through healthcare provider-patient communication. Future studies can work on improved authenticity, translate the training into other languages and cultures, expand with additional VR cases, and measure the expected effects on providers communication skills and subsequently patient outcomes.

Harmful communication behaviors in cancer care: A systematic review of patients and family caregivers perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: Issues regarding clinician communication remain an important source of complaints within healthcare. This systematic review aims to determine cancer patients' and their family caregivers' views on which clinicians' communication behaviors can harm (i.e. eliciting negative feelings/consequences for patients/family caregivers). METHODS: We searched for all types of peer-reviewed studies that determined adult (≥18 years) cancer patients' and/or family caregivers' perspectives on which clinicians' communication behaviors can harm in several databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, PsycINFO and Academic Search Premier), supplemented by expert-consultation. Studies were screened using the Artificial intelligence screening tool of ASReview and data was analyzed using Thematic Analysis. To assess the quality of the studies the Qualsyst critical appraisal tool was used. RESULTS: A total of 47 studies were included. Four main themes of harmful communication behaviors were identified: (1) Lack of tailored information provision (e.g. giving too little or too much/specific information) (2) Lack of tailored decision making (ranging from; patient exclusion, to the patients' responsibility, and/or haste) (3) Lack of feeling seen and heard (seen as a disease, not as a human being; not listened to concerns and emotions) (4) Lack of feeling held and remembered (forgotten agreements; lack of care continuity). CONCLUSIONS: Our results reveal an overview of patients' and family caregivers' perspectives on which clinicians' communication behaviors can harm. Harm could be prevented when information and decision involvement are tailored and patients' and family caregivers' needs to feel seen, heard, held and remembered are met.

Good versus bad news consultations in advanced breast cancer: the role of empathy in information recall - an observational study.

OBJECTIVE: We explored, in advanced breast cancer, whether: (1) patients recall less information following bad versus good news consultations; (2) empathy has a greater effect on recalled information following bad versus good news consultations. METHODS: Observational study using audio-recorded consultations. Participants' recall of provided information about treatment options, aims/positive effects and side-effects was assessed. Clinician-expressed empathy and consultation type were determined. Regression analyses assessed associations between consultation type and recall, exploring moderating influences of clinician-expressed empathy. RESULTS: For 41 consultations (18 bad news, 23 good news), recall data were completed; total recall (47% vs 73%, p=0.03) and recall about treatment options (67% vs 85%, p=0.08, trend) were significantly worse following bad news compared with good news consultations. Recall about treatment aims/positive effects (53% vs 70%, p=0.30) and side-effects (28% vs 49%, p=0.20) was not significantly worse following bad news. Empathy moderated the relationship between consultation type and total recall (p<0.01), recall about treatment options (p=0.03) and about aims/positive effects (p<0.01) but not about side-effects (p=0.10). Only following good news consultations empathy influenced recall favourably. CONCLUSIONS: This explorative study suggests that in advanced cancer, information recall is especially impaired following bad news consultations, for which empathy does not improve remembered information.

Mind your words: Oncologists' communication that potentially harms patients with advanced cancer: A survey on patient perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Many complaints in medicine and in advanced illnesses are about communication. Little is known about which specific communications harm. This study explored the perspectives of patients with advanced cancer about potentially harmful communication behaviors by oncologists and helpful alternatives. METHODS: An online survey design was used that was based on literature scoping and patient/clinician/researcher input. Patients with advanced cancer (n = 74) reflected on the potential harmfulness of 19 communication situations. They were asked whether they perceived the situation as one in which communication could be harmful (yes/no). If they answered "yes," they were asked whether they perceived the examples as harmful (yes/no) or helpful (yes/no) and to provide open comments. Results were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively (content analysis). RESULTS: Communication regarding information provision, prognosis discussion, decision-making, and empathy could be unnecessarily potentially harmful, and this occurred in various ways, such as making vague promises instead of concrete ones (92%), being too directive in decision-making (qualitative), and not listening to the patient (88%). Not all patients considered other situations potentially harmful (eg, introducing the option of refraining from anticancer therapy [49%] and giving too much [prognostic] information [60%]). Exploring each individual patients' needs/preferences seemed to be a precondition for helpful communication. CONCLUSIONS: This article provides patient perspectives on oncologists' unnecessarily potentially harmful communication behaviors and offers practical tools to improve communication in advanced cancer care. Both preventable pitfalls and delicate challenges requiring an individualized approach, where exploration might help, are described. Although providing difficult and unwelcome news is a core task for clinicians, this study might help them to do so while preventing potentially unnecessary harm.

The power of clinician-expressed empathy to increase information recall in advanced breast cancer care: an observational study in clinical care, exploring the mediating role of anxiety.

OBJECTIVE: Experimental studies have found that clinician-expressed empathy improves patients' information recall in (advanced) cancer consultations. It remains unclear, however, whether these results are generalizable to clinical care and, if so, what the underlying mechanism is. We aimed to i) determine the relationship between clinician-expressed empathy and patients' information recall in clinical advanced breast cancer consultations; and ii) test whether the relationship between clinician-expressed empathy and recall is mediated by a decrease in patients' anxiety. METHODS: Forty-one consultations between oncologists and female patients with advanced breast cancer were audio recorded. Patients' post-consultation information recall and pre- and post-consultation anxiety (0-100) were assessed. Recall was scored according to a self-created questionnaire. Clinician-expressed empathy (0-100) was assessed by observers. Structural Equation Modelling was used for all analyses. RESULTS: Participants remembered 61% of the information discussed. Clinician-expressed empathy significantly increased patients' total information recall (p = .041) and recall of treatment aims/positive effects (p = .028). The mediating role of anxiety could not be established. CONCLUSION: Although the underlying mechanism remains unclear, clinicians have a powerful tool to improve seriously ill breast cancer patients' recall of information: empathy. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These insights should encourage clinicians to express empathy; practical communication training might prove helpful.

Patients' and Clinicians' Perceptions of Clinician-Expressed Empathy in Advanced Cancer Consultations and Associations with Patient Outcomes.

Background: Empathy is a cornerstone of effective communication. However, clinicians' and patients' perceptions of clinician-expressed empathy might differ. The independent perceptions of patients and clinicians on clinician-expressed empathy in advanced cancer consultations and the associations of these perceptions with patient outcomes are unknown. Objective: We assessed (1) patients' and clinicians' independent perceptions of clinician-(self-)expressed empathy in advanced cancer consultations and (2) the associations between these perceptions and affective patient outcomes. Methods: This observational study included data from 41 consultations in the advanced breast cancer setting. Postconsultation, patients' and clinicians' perceptions of clinician-expressed empathy were assessed, as well as patients' (1) pre-post anxiety, (2) post-anxiety, (3) emotional well-being, and (4) satisfaction. Multilevel regression analyses were run to draw conclusions. Results: Patients perceived higher levels of empathy than clinicians, without a significant relationship between the two (mean [M] = 85.47, standard deviation [SD] = 14.00 vs. M = 61.88, SD = 15.30, 0-100 scale; ß = 0.14, p < 0.138, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.04 to 0.32). Higher patient-perceived empathy was associated with decreased anxiety [(1) ß = -0.67, p = 0.039, 95% CI = -1.30 to -0.03; (2) ß = -0.15, p = 0.042, 95% CI = -0.30 to -0.01], higher satisfaction (ß = 0.05, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.03 to 0.08), and lower emotional distress (ß = -0.32, p < 0.001, 95% CI = -0.48 to -0.16). There were no associations with clinicians' perceptions [(1) ß = -0.34, p = 0.307, 95% CI = -1.00 to 0.31; (2) ß = -0.02, p = 0.824, 95% CI = -0.17 to 0.14; (3) ß < 0.01, p = 0.918, 95% CI = -0.03 to 0.02; (4) ß = 0.08, p = 0.335, 95% CI = -0.08 to 0.25]. Conclusions: Patients' and clinicians' empathy perceptions differed. In improving patient outcomes, the focus should be on patients' perceptions of clinician-expressed empathy. Future research could focus on ways to elicit patients' perceptions of empathy with the higher aim of improving patient outcomes.

The Use of Expectancy and Empathy When Communicating With Patients With Advanced Breast Cancer; an Observational Study of Clinician-Patient Consultations.

Background: Information provision about prognosis, treatments, and side-effects is important in advanced cancer, yet also associated with impaired patient well-being. To counter potential detrimental effects, communication strategies based on placebo and nocebo effect mechanisms might be promising to apply in daily practice. This study aimed to provide more insight into how often and how oncologists use expectancy and empathy expressions in consultations with patients with advanced breast cancer. Methods: Forty-five consultations between oncologists and patients were audiotaped. To determine how often expectancy and empathy expressions were used, a coding scheme was created. Most consultations (n = 33) were coded and discussed by two coders, and the remaining 13 were coded by one coder. To determine how expectancy and empathy expressions were used, principles of inductive content analysis were followed. Results: Discussed evaluation (i.e., scan) results were good (n = 26,58%) or uncertain (n = 12,27%) and less often bad (n = 7,15%). Uncertain expectations about prognosis, treatment outcomes, and side effects occurred in 13, 38, and 27 consultations (29%, 85%, and 56%), followed by negative expectations in 8, 26, and 28 consultations (18%, 58%, and 62%) and positive expectations in 6, 34, and 17 consultations (13%, 76%, and 38%). When oncologists provided expectancy expressions, they tapped into three different dimensions: relational, personal, and explicit. Positive expectations emphasized the doctor-patient relationship, while negative expectations focused on the severity of the illness, and uncertainty was characterized by a balance between (potential) negative outcomes and hope. Observed generic or specific empathy expressions were regularly provided, most frequently understanding (n = 29,64% of consultations), respecting (n = 17,38%), supporting (n = 16,36%), and exploring (n = 16,36%). A lack of empathy occurred less often and contained, among others, not responding to patients' emotional concerns (n = 13,27% of consultations), interrupting (n = 7,16%), and an absence of understanding (n = 4,9%). Conclusion: In consultations with mainly positive or uncertain medical outcomes, oncologists predominantly made use of uncertain expectations (hope for the best, prepare for the worst) and used several empathic behaviors. Replication studies, e.g., in these and other medical situations, are needed. Follow-up studies should test the effect of specific communication strategies on patient outcomes, to counter potential negative effects of information provision. Studies should focus on uncertain situations. Ultimately, specific placebo and nocebo effect-inspired communication strategies can be harnessed in clinical care to improve patient outcomes.