RESUMEN
Background. Communication in the breast cancer treatment consultation is complex. Language barriers may increase the challenge of achieving patient-centered communication and effective shared decision making. Design. We conducted a prospective cohort study among Spanish- and English-speaking women with stage 0 to 3 breast cancer in two urban medical centers in the Midwestern United States. Patient centeredness of care and decisional conflict were compared between Spanish- and English-speaking participants using the Interpersonal Processes of Care (IPC) and Decision Conflict Scale (DCS), respectively. Clinician behaviors of shared decision making were assessed from consultation audio-recordings using the 12-item Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making (OPTION) scale. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to control for differences in baseline characteristics and clinician specialty. Results. Fifteen Spanish-speaking and 35 English-speaking patients were enrolled in the study. IPC scores (median, interquartile range [IQR]) were higher (less patient centered) in Spanish- versus English-speaking participants in the domains of lack of clarity (2.5, 1-3 v. 1.5, 1-2), P = 0.028; perceived discrimination (1.1, 1-1 v. 1.0, 1-1), P = 0.047; and disrespectful office staff (1.25, 1-2 v. 1.0, 1-1), P < 0.0005 (Wilcoxon rank-sum test). OPTION scores (median, IQR) were lower in Spanish- versus English-speaking participants (21.9, 17.7-27.1 v. 31.3, 26.6-39.6), P = 0.001 (Wilcoxon rank-sum test). In multivariate analysis, statistically significant differences persisted in the IPC lack of clarity and disrespectful office staff between Spanish- and English-speaking groups. Conclusions. Our findings highlight challenges in cancer communication for Spanish-speaking patients, particularly with respect to perceived patient centeredness of communication. Further cross-cultural studies are needed to ensure effective communication and shared decision making in the cancer consultation.
RESUMEN
Background: Communication of statistics and probability is challenging in the cancer care setting. The objectives of this study are to evaluate a novel approach to cancer communication through the use of a computer assessment of patient health numeracy. Methods: We conducted a pilot study of the Computer Adapted Test of Numeracy Understanding in Medicine Instrument (CAT-NUMi) before the cancer treatment consultation for women with stage 0-3 breast cancer. Patient outcomes included the interpersonal processes of care (IPC) and the decisional conflict scale. We evaluated clinician use of numeric information in the cancer consultation and assessed feasibility outcomes from the clinician and patient perspective. Results: Patient participants (n = 50) had a median (interquartile range) age of 51 years (46-61), 70% were English speaking, and 30% Spanish speaking. Decisional conflict was low with a mean (standard deviation [SD]) decisional conflict score of 17.4 (12.3). The lack of clarity score (range 1-5) on the IPC was low (mean, SD),1.70 (0.71), indicating clear communication. Clinicians more often used percentages in communicating prognosis among those with higher numeracy scores (median, range): high (2, 0-8), medium (1, 0-7), and low (0, 0-8); p = 0.04. The patient experience of taking the CAT-NUMi was rated as very good or excellent by 65%, fair by 33%, and poor by 2% of patients. Conclusion: Screening for health numeracy with a short computer-based test may be a feasible strategy to optimize clear communication in the cancer treatment consultation. Further studies are needed to evaluate this strategy across cancer treatment clinical settings and populations.