Communication quality predicts patients' colorectal cancer screening behavior.

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the quality of patient/clinician communication as one potential factor that impacts colorectal cancer screening behavior. As part of a larger randomized controlled trial conducted between 2011 and 2016 in the setting of community and academic family medicine or internal medicine practices in Michigan, USA, patients completed a pre-encounter survey, completed their regularly scheduled visit with their primary care clinician (which was audio-recorded), completed a post-encounter survey, and allowed 6-month follow-up chart audit. We trained 10 coders to rate 216 of the audio-recorded conversations between 216 patients and their primary care physicians for 6 specific features of communication quality (using 7-point scales), including the extent to which participants enacted attention to medical content, engagement, emotional expression, relationships, face, and accommodation. At least 3 coders rated each conversation, and intraclass correlations (i.e., reliability assessment) were in the good to excellent range. We found that patient and clinician attention to face (an identity goal) was a significant predictor of colorectal cancer screening at 6 months follow up. Measuring communication in terms of attention to multiple goals reveals unexpected findings about the aspects of communication that impact colorectal cancer screening behavior. The focus of many interventions to improve colorectal cancer screening rates is on the content (i.e., task goals) of clinicians' communication (such as presenting the different options for screening), yet the content of communication was not a significant predictor of screening in the present study. Rather, clinicians' and patients' attention to identity goals predicted screening behavior, which suggests that interventions may not need to be overly complex and that simply improving the quality of attention to identity goals in clinician communication might be one of the most straightforward yet impactful ways to improve colorectal cancer screening uptake among patients.

Examining the communication work of women who have tested BRCA-positive: "I feel this responsibility to let people know".

Inheriting a pathogenic variant in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene considerably increases a woman's risk levels for developing breast and ovarian cancer. In addition to serious physical health implications, women with a BRCA pathogenic variant may face psychosocial challenges, including those related to navigating the often demanding process of communicating about topics regarding BRCA with family and other social network members. Based on in-depth interviews with 24 women who tested BRCA-positive, we found that-consistent with the conceptualization of communication work articulated by Donovan-Kicken et al. (2012) as an extension of the theory of illness trajectories (Corbin & Strauss, 1988)-the labor of communicating about BRCA genetic risk entails (a) duties, (b) challenges, (c) strategies, and (d) shared work. Within each category, our results illuminate particular characteristics of communication work for women who have tested BRCA-positive, which are commonly tied to the profound health consequences that a pathogenic variant may have for them and, potentially, for their genetic relatives. Our findings offer useful theoretical implications regarding communication work in this context. Furthermore, our results yield valuable practical insight for genetic counselors and other health care professionals regarding the struggles that can accompany communication work for women who have tested BRCA-positive as well as the strategies that participants reported using to manage or avoid these challenges.

Women's Metaphors About BRCA Gene Testing and How They Can Inform Health Communication Theory and Practice.

Genetic testing can detect whether an individual carries a harmful variant in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 (Breast Cancer 1 or 2) gene which, if present, drastically increases a woman's risk for breast and ovarian cancer. The experience of BRCA gene testing can be an emotionally laden process yielding significant uncertainty. In this study, we examined women's experiences of BRCA gene testing by exploring how participants communicatively framed and made sense of this process through the use of metaphors. Comparing uncertain and unfamiliar experiences to familiar references through metaphor can help people in challenging health-related situations with sense-making and communicating complex emotions. Furthermore, metaphors can be employed as a therapeutic tool by health care professionals, but their use has not often been studied regarding experiences of genetic testing, including BRCA gene testing. We conducted in-depth interviews with 42 women who have undergone BRCA gene testing (regardless of results), and analyzed data using constant comparative techniques. Eight categories of metaphors that women used surrounding BRCA gene testing were evident in the data, including those related to (a) knowledge is power; (b) gambling; (c) a journey; (d) a rollercoaster; (e) battle, disaster, or wreckage; (f) Pandora's box or a can of worms; (g) doom and gloom; and (h) the release or placing of a weight. Results enhance our understanding of women's experiences related to the uncertainty-inducing process of BRCA gene testing and lead to valuable theoretical implications and practical recommendations, including regarding the potential use of metaphors in patient-provider communication about BRCA genetic risk.

Oncologists' Perceptions of Strategies for Discussing the Cost of Care with Cancer Patients and the Meaning of Those Conversations.

To better understand what makes cost-of-care communication between oncologists and cancer patients more or less successful, we conducted in-depth interviews with 32 oncologists (22 male, 10 female) who were board-certified in medical, surgical, or radiation oncology. Through qualitative descriptive analysis by four coders, we found that oncologists used six broad strategies to discuss cost with patients: open discussion, avoidance, reassurance, warning, outsourcing, and educating. We also found that oncologists invoked certain meanings of cost conversations: cost conversations as holistic care, coercion, a matter of timing, risking patient suspicions, advocacy, unwanted distraction, transparency, bad news delivery, problem-solving, pointless, informed decision making, or irrelevant. These meanings appeared to be linked to oncologists enacting certain strategies (e.g., oncologists who invoked cost conversations as holistic care tended to enact open discussion, those who saw cost conversations as risky tended to use avoidance). Theoretically, our results suggest that the invoked meaning of a difficult conversation may be a key explanatory mechanism for differentiating high-quality from low-quality communication in cost conversations. Practically, our findings suggest that oncologists should consider how well the invoked meaning of the cost conversation is serving their own and their patients' goals.

Are Cost-of-Care Conversations Best Practice? A Qualitative Study of Oncologists' Attitudes and Practice.

PURPOSE: Patients' desire for cost conversations exceeds the incidence of such conversations, and many oncologists report avoiding cost conversations despite reporting willingness to have them. Our objective was to examine oncologists' attitudes toward cost conversations and how those attitudes affect practice. METHODS: An experienced investigator conducted individual interviews with oncologists practicing in Kentucky. Participants were asked about their attitude toward and experience with cost conversations and their advice for discussing cost with patients. Interview transcripts were analyzed by a four-member team using qualitative descriptive analysis to identify themes. RESULTS: Participants were 32 MDs (male = 68.8%) age 31-77 years who were board-certified in medical oncology (53.1%), surgical oncology (25.0%), or radiation oncology (21.9%). We categorized participants into two groups: (1) those who viewed cost conversations as best practice and reported pursuing such conversations (37.5%) and (2) those who viewed cost conversations as not best practice and reported avoiding them (62.5%). Our analysis revealed three parallel themes for each category: Cost conversation attitudes and practice were based on (1) making good treatment decisions, (2) being a good clinician, and (3) having a good relationship with patients. CONCLUSION: Not all oncologists view cost conversations as best practice. To improve cost conversation attitudes and practice, cost conversations can be framed as a strategic tool that-when used well-fosters optimal decision making, professionalism, and the therapeutic relationship.

Working toward evidence-based guidelines for cost-of-care conversations between patients and physicians: A systematic review of the literature.

RATIONALE: As healthcare costs continue to rise, so does the importance of having cost-of-care conversations during medical office visits, especially for patients from vulnerable populations and patients with high-cost illnesses such as cancer. Such conversations remain relatively rare, however, even though physicians and patients say they want to have them. Furthermore, there is a lack of evidence-based guidelines for encouraging cost conversations and improving their quality. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this project was to conduct a systematic review of the cost-of-care conversations literature, focusing on empirical studies to characterize the state of the literature and provide a foundation for developing evidence-based guidelines for these important conversations. METHOD: We searched seven electronic databases and identified an initial list of 1,986 records, 54 of which met inclusion criteria. We reviewed those articles to identify study purpose, use of theory, conceptual and operational definitions of cost conversations, sample characteristics, research methods, variables relevant to cost conversations, and relevant study findings. RESULTS: Results revealed that this literature (a) consists overwhelmingly of cross-sectional survey research set in the United States, (b) defines cost conversations chiefly as those focused on healthcare or medication costs (either in general or out-of-pocket), (c) is focused primarily on establishing incidence/frequency of cost conversations but also considers patient/provider desire for, attitudes/beliefs toward, and perceived barriers to cost conversations, and (d) lacks theoretical guidance. There were very few findings that could provide actionable evidence to guide quality conversations about reducing cost of care. We offer observations and recommendations for the next steps in cost conversations research so that patients and physicians can work together to promote quality care at affordable costs.

Lay Epistemology of Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines Among Appalachian Women.

Recent changes to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines for breast cancer screening have contributed to increased patient uncertainty regarding the timing and appropriateness of screening behaviors. To gain insight into the lay epistemology of women regarding breast cancer screening practices, we conducted in-depth, face-to-face interviews with 24 adult women living in a medically underserved Appalachian region. We found that women were unaware of breast cancer screening guidelines (i.e., start age, frequency, stop age). Qualitative analysis revealed two lay epistemological narratives establishing (a) uncertain knowledge and ambiguity about breast cancer screening guidelines but certain knowledge of other women's experiences with breast cancer diagnoses, and (b) feelings of knowing one's own body best and seeing the value in "overscreening" to save even one life. Our findings have theoretical and practical implications for scholars and practitioners seeking to improve knowledge or behavior regarding adherence to breast cancer screening recommendations.

Normative Social Support in Young Adult Cancer Survivors.

Following a cancer diagnosis, young adults (YAs; that is, 18-39) often experience altered social relationships with family, friends, romantic partners, and peers. In light of the social struggles YA patients and survivors report due to cancer's biographical disruption, we elicited narratives from 30 YA cancer survivors to examine how their normative perceptions of social support functioned to hinder and assist them in coping with the cancer experience. Through thematic narrative analysis of their individual accounts, YA survivors explained why and how they perceived various support attempts from peers and loved ones to be effective (i.e., being treated "normally"), ineffective (i.e., receiving pity, negative stories, rudeness, excessive self-monitoring, and returns from estrangement), and both effective and ineffective (e.g., instrumental and relational support) in integrating cancer into their biographies. Implications for the advancement of interpersonal communication theory and for the development of age-appropriate communication interventions, educational programs, and informational resources are discussed.

Evaluation of Patient Needs and Patient Navigator Communication about Cervical Cancer Prevention in Appalachian Kentucky.

Few studies describe the way patient navigation processes may address disparities in treatment and follow-up care for medically underserved populations. Using a social ecological framework, we analyzed survey assessments of 519 patients completing a randomized navigation trial in Appalachia Kentucky to examine patient-reported barriers to follow-up cervical cancer care. We also analyzed in-depth interview transcripts with four lay patient navigators in the trial to identify barriers to follow-up care and to learn what communication strategies navigators use to successfully (or unsuccessfully) help patients navigate around those barriers. Our analysis provides insight into how patient navigation may improve adherence to follow-up care through assisted uncertainty management. We also discuss opportunities for improving navigator training to address disparities in clinical outcomes.

Exploring the presentation of news information about the HPV vaccine: a content analysis of a representative sample of U.S. newspaper articles.

Approximately 20 million people in the United States have genital human papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually transmitted infection linked to cancer. We examined the news information presented about the HPV vaccine in major U.S. newspapers over the 19 months following its Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. To answer the question of how news information is presented in ways that might influence public health, we explored the frequency of cancer prevention and sexually transmitted infection prevention message frames used to describe the HPV vaccine, the extent to which journalists relied on official sources, and the presence of personal examples. A content analysis of 547 newspaper articles revealed that less than half of the articles provided detailed health information. Of the articles that contained a message frame, cancer prevention was most frequently employed. Government/political sources, medical doctors, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were the most commonly cited sources. Finally, we found that only 16% of all the articles we sampled featured personal accounts. Together, our findings suggest that U.S. newspaper coverage lacked detailed information about both HPV and the HPV vaccine in spite of federal approval of the vaccine, legal mandates for the vaccine, and a widespread information campaign. Implications for public health are discussed.