Communication about Prognosis during Patient-Initiated Second Opinion Consultations in Advanced Cancer Care: An Observational Qualitative Analysis.

Prognostic communication is essential for patients with advanced cancer to enable informed medical decision-making and end-of-life planning. Discussing prognosis is challenging, and might be especially complex for oncologists conducting a second opinion (SO). Survival data are often lacking, and consulting oncologists need to consider previously conveyed information and patients' relationship with the referring oncologist. We qualitatively investigated how advanced cancer patients and consulting oncologists discuss prognosis during audio-recorded SO consultations (N = 60), including prognostic information received from the referring oncologist. Our results show that patients regularly expressed implicit cues to discuss prognosis or posed explicit questions tentatively. Consulting oncologists were mostly unresponsive to patients' cues and cautious to prognosticate. They also seemed cautious when patients brought up the referring oncologist. Consulting oncologists checked which prognostic information patients had received from the referring oncologist, before estimating prognosis. They agreed with the first opinion or rectified discrepancies carefully. Altogether, this study exposes missed opportunities for open prognostic discussions in SOs. Consulting oncologists could explicitly explore patients' information preferences and perceptions of prognosis. If desired, they can provide tailored, independent information to optimise patients' prognostic awareness and informed medical decision-making. They may additionally support patients in dealing with prognosis and the uncertainties associated with it.

Impact of Second Opinions in Breast Cancer Diagnostics and Treatment: A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer care is becoming increasingly complex, and patients with breast cancer are increasingly aware of the different treatment options, resulting in requests for second opinions (SOs). The current study investigates the impact of breast cancer SOs on final diagnosis and treatment in the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NCI) using a newly designed Breast Cancer Second Opinion (BCSO) classification system. METHODS: Patients who visited the NCI for an SO between October 2015 and September 2016 were included. Demographics, diagnostics, and treatment proposals were compared between first and SO. Discrepancy was categorized using our BCSO classification system, categorizing SOs into (1) noncomparable, (2) identical, and (3) minor or (4) major discrepancy. RESULTS: The majority of SOs (n = 591) were patient initiated (90.7%). A total of 121 patients underwent treatment prior to their SO, leaving 470 patients for assessment of discrepancies according to our BCSO classification system. More than 45% of these SOs resulted in at least one discrepancy, with comparable rates for physician- and patient-initiated SOs (42.5% vs. 45.6%, p = 0.708). Significantly more discrepancies were observed in patients with additional imaging (51.3% vs. 37.2%, p = 0.002) and biopsies (53.7% vs. 40.3%, p = 0.005). Almost 60% of all discrepancies were categorized as major (neoadjuvant systemic treatment instead of primary surgery, breast-conserving surgery instead of mastectomy, and proposing postmastectomy immediate breast reconstruction). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show substantial differences in diagnostic and treatment options in breast cancer patients visiting the Netherlands Cancer Institute for an SO, thereby emphasizing more consensus for the indications of these treatment modalities.

How oncologists' communication improves (analogue) patients' recall of information. A randomized video-vignettes study.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer patients need information provision to cope with their disease. However, only 20-60% of information provided during consultations is remembered. This study aimed to investigate whether oncologists' use of trust-conveying communication, characterized by communicating competence, honesty and caring, enhances patients' memory. Moreover, we aimed to investigate if this hypothetical relationship is mediated by a reduction in psychophysiological arousal during the consultation. METHODS: An experimental design was used, allowing for conclusion about causality. Two versions of a scripted video-taped consultation were used in which the oncologist adopted either a standard or a trust-conveying communication style. 97 cancer-naive individuals acted as analogue patients and were randomly assigned to watch one of the consultations. RESULTS: Free recall, assessed 24-28h after viewing, was higher (p=0.039) in the trust-conveying condition (65.3% versus 59.5%). Recognition did not differ (p=0.502). Psychophysiological assessment during watching showed a smaller heart rate response in the trust-conveying condition (p=0.037). No mediation effect nor an effect on electrodermal activity was found. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that oncologists' use of trust-conveying communication could increase patients' free recall of information and diminish their cardiovascular response. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The underlying mechanisms by which oncologists' communication influences information recall warrants further investigation.

How can communication by oncologists enhance patients' trust? An experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients need to trust their oncologist to embark in the process of oncologic treatment. Yet, it is unclear how oncologist communication contributes to such trust. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of three elements of oncologists' communication on cancer patients' trust: conferring competence, honesty, and caring. METHODS: Eight videotaped consultations, 'vignettes', were created, reflecting an encounter between an oncologist and a patient with colorectal cancer. All vignettes were identical, except for small variations in the oncologist's verbal communication. Cancer patients (n = 345) were randomly assigned to viewing two vignettes, asked to identify with the patient and afterwards to rate their trust in the observed oncologist. The effects of competence, honesty, and caring on trust were established with multilevel analysis. RESULTS: Oncologist's enhanced expression of competence (ß = 0.17, 95% CI 0.08, 0.27; P < 0.001), honesty (ß = 0.30, 95% CI 0.20, 0.40; P < 0.001), as well as caring (ß = 0.36, 95% CI 0.26, 0.46; P < 0.001) resulted in significantly increased trust. Communication of honesty and caring also increased patients' expectation of operation success and reported willingness to recommend the oncologist. CONCLUSION(S): As hypothesized, oncologists can influence their patients' trust by enhanced conveyance of their level of competence, honesty, and caring. Caring behavior has the strongest impact on trust. These findings can be translated directly into daily clinical practice as well as in communication skills training.

Assessing cancer patients' trust in their oncologist: development and validation of the Trust in Oncologist Scale (TiOS).

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to develop and validate the Trust in Oncologist Scale (TiOS), which aims to measure cancer patients' trust in their oncologist. Structure, reliability and validity were examined. METHODS: Construction of the TiOS was based on a multidimensional theoretical framework. Cancer patients were surveyed within a week after their consultation. Trust, satisfaction, trust in health care, self-reported health and background variables were assessed. Dimensionality, internal consistency, test-retest reliability and construct validity were investigated. RESULTS: Data of 423 patients were included (response rate = 65%). After item reduction, the TiOS included 18 items. Trust scores were high. Exploratory factor analysis suggested one-dimensionality. Confirmatory factor analysis nevertheless indicated a reasonable fit of our four-dimensional theoretical model, distinguishing competence, fidelity, honesty and caring. Internal consistency and test-retest reliabilities were high. Good construct validity was indicated by moderate correlations of trust (TiOS) with satisfaction, trust in health care, willingness to recommend and number of consultations with the oncologist. Exploratory analyses suggested significant correlations of trust with ethnicity and age. CONCLUSIONS: The TiOS reliably and validly assesses cancer patients' trust in their oncologist. The questionnaire can be employed in both clinical practice and future research of cancer patients' trust.