Efficacy of a hypnosis-based intervention to improve well-being during cancer: a comparison between prostate and breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Prostate and breast cancer can have a lot of negative consequences such as fatigue, sleep difficulties and emotional distress, which decrease quality of life. Group interventions showed benefits to emotional distress and fatigue, but most of these studies focus on breast cancer patients. However, it is important to test if an effective intervention for breast cancer patients could also have benefits for prostate cancer patients. METHODS: Our controlled study aimed to compare the efficacy of a self-hypnosis/self-care group intervention to improve emotional distress, sleep difficulties, fatigue and quality of life of breast and prostate cancer patients. 25 men with prostate cancer and 68 women with breast cancer participated and were evaluated before (T0) and after (T1) the intervention. RESULTS: After the intervention, the breast cancer group showed positive effects for anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep difficulties, and global health status, whereas there was no effect in the prostate cancer group. We showed that women suffered from higher difficulties prior to the intervention and that their oncological treatments were different in comparison to men. CONCLUSION: The differences in the efficacy of the intervention could be explained by the baseline differences. As men in our sample reported few distress, fatigue or sleep problems, it is likely that they did not improve on these dimensions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02569294 and NCT03423927 ). Retrospectively registered in October 2015 and February 2018 respectively.

Predictors of physicians' satisfaction with their management of uncertainty during a decision-making encounter with a simulated advanced stage cancer patient.

OBJECTIVES: To optimize their training, predictors of physicians' satisfaction with their management of uncertainty should be examined. This study investigated these predictors by using a simulated advanced stage cancer patient. METHODS: Physicians (n=85) rated their satisfaction with their management of uncertainty (Visual Analog Scale-100mm) after a decision-making encounter. Communication predictors were examined with the: Observing Patient Involvement scale (OPTION), Multidimensional analysis of Patient Outcome Predictions (MD.POP) and Communication Content Analysis Software (LaComm). Psychological predictors were assessed with the: Intolerance of Uncertainty Inventory (IUI), Physicians' Reactions to Uncertainty scale (PRU), Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), and Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy (JSPE). RESULTS: Physicians' satisfaction (mean=67mm; standard deviation=17mm) was not predicted by their communication, but by their anxiety due to uncertainty (PRU) (ß=-.42; p=<.001) and their perceived empathy (JSPE) (ß=.26; p=.009). These variables accounted for 25% of variance in physicians' satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' satisfaction with their management of uncertainty was not affected by their communication performance, but by their psychological characteristics. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Training programs should increase physicians' awareness regarding the communication performance required in decision-making encounters under conditions of uncertainty.

Is it possible to improve the breaking bad news skills of residents when a relative is present? A randomised study.

BACKGROUND: Although patients with cancer are often accompanied by a relative during breaking bad news (BBN) consultations, little is known regarding the efficacy of training programmes designed to teach residents the communication skills needed to break bad news in a triadic consultation. METHODS: Residents were randomly assigned to a 40-h dyadic and triadic communication skills training programme (n=48) or a waiting list (n=47). A simulated BBN triadic consultation was audiotaped at baseline, and after training for the training group, and 8 months after baseline for the waiting list group. Transcripts were analysed using content analysis software (LaComm). A coder determined the moment of bad news delivery and the relative's first turn of speech regarding the bad news. A generalised estimating equation was used to evaluate residents' communication skills, BBN timing, and the relative's inclusion in the consultation. RESULTS: Ninety-five residents were included. After training, the duration of the pre-delivery phase was found to be longer for the trained residents (relative risk (RR)=3.04; P<0.001). The simulated relative's first turn of speech about the bad news came more often during the pre-delivery phase (RR=6.68; P=0.008), and was more often initiated by the trained residents (RR=19.17; P<0.001). Trained residents also used more assessment (RR=1.83; P<0.001) and supportive utterances (RR=1.58; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that a training programme that focuses on the practice of dyadic and triadic communication skills can improve the communication skills of the participating residents in a BBN triadic consultation. Such a training should be included in resident curriculum.

Is it possible to improve residents breaking bad news skills? A randomised study assessing the efficacy of a communication skills training program.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to assess the efficacy of a 40-h training programme designed to teach residents the communication skills needed to break the bad news. METHODS: Residents were randomly assigned to the training programme or to a waiting list. A simulated patient breaking bad news (BBN) consultation was audiotaped at baseline and after training in the training group and 8 months after baseline in the waiting-list group. Transcripts were analysed by tagging the used communication skills with a content analysis software (LaComm) and by tagging the phases of bad news delivery: pre-delivery, delivery and post-delivery. Training effects were tested with generalised estimating equation (GEE) and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). RESULTS: The trained residents (n=50) used effective communication skills more often than the untrained residents (n=48): more open questions (relative rate (RR)=5.79; P<0.001), open directive questions (RR=1.71; P=0.003) and empathy (RR=4.50; P=0.017) and less information transmission (RR=0.72; P=0.001). The pre-delivery phase was longer for the trained (1 min 53 s at baseline and 3 min 55 s after training) compared with the untrained residents (2 min 7 s at baseline and 1 min 46 s at second assessment time; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: This study shows the efficacy of training programme designed to improve residents' BBN skills. The way residents break bad news may thus be improved.

Factors that influence cancer patients' anxiety following a medical consultation: impact of a communication skills training programme for physicians.

BACKGROUND: No study has yet assessed the impact of physicians' skills acquisition after a communication skills training programme on the evolution of patients' anxiety following a medical consultation. This study aimed to compare the impact, on patients' anxiety, of a basic communication skills training programme (BT) and the same programme consolidated by consolidation workshops (CW), and to investigate physicians' communication variables associated with patients' anxiety. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Physicians, after attending the BT, were randomly assigned to CW or to a waiting list. The control group was not a non-intervention group. Consultations with a cancer patient were recorded. Patients' anxiety was assessed with the State Trait Anxiety Inventory before and after a consultation. Communication skills were analysed according to the Cancer Research Campaign Workshop Evaluation Manual. RESULTS: No statistically significant change over time and between groups was observed. Mixed-effects modelling showed that a decrease in patients' anxiety was linked with screening questions (P = 0.045), physicians' satisfaction about support given (P = 0.004) and with patients' distress (P < 0.001). An increase in anxiety was linked with breaking bad news (P = 0.050) and with supportive skills (P = 0.013). No impact of the training programme was observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the influence of some communication skills on the evolution of patients' anxiety. Physicians should be aware of these influences.

Impact of medical specialists' locus of control on communication skills in oncological interviews.

Although is it widely recognised that physicians' characteristics could influence their communication styles, no empirical evidence is currently available. No studies are available on the impact of physicians' locus of control (LOC) on their communication skills. LOC is a generalised belief regarding the extent to which life outcomes are controlled by an individual's actions (internal LOC) or by external forces such as luck, fate or other individuals (external LOC). It was hypothesised that physicians with external LOC would take more into account others' concerns than physicians with internal LOC and would consequently use more appropriate assessment, informative and supportive functions. A total of 81 medical specialists were assessed in a simulated interview and a clinical interview. Communication skills were rated according to the Cancer Research Campaign Workshop Evaluation Manual. LOC was assessed using the Rotter I-E scale. Communication skills of the upper and lower quartiles of physicians in respect of their scores on this scale were compared using Student's t-test. Results show that physicians with external LOC give more appropriate information than physicians with internal LOC in simulated interviews (P=0.011) and less premature information than physicians with internal LOC in clinical interviews (P=0.015). This result provides evidence that physicians' LOC can influence their communication styles in oncological interviews and in particular the way they provide information to the patient.