Effects of on-site Supportive Communication Training (On-site SCT) on doctor-patient communication in oncology: Study protocol of a randomized, controlled mixed-methods trial.

BACKGROUND: The quality of communication in oncology significantly impacts patients' health outcomes, as poor communication increases the risk of unnecessary treatment, inadequate pain relief, higher anxiety levels, and acute hospitalizations. Additionally, ineffective communication skills training (CST) is associated with stress, low job satisfaction, and burnout among doctors working in oncology. While acknowledging the importance of effective communication, the specific features of successful CST remain uncertain. Role-play and recorded consultations with direct feedback appear promising for CST but may be time-consuming and face challenges in transferring acquired skills to clinical contexts. Our aim is to bridge this gap by proposing a novel approach: On-site Supportive Communication Training (On-site SCT). The concept integrates knowledge from previous studies but represents the first randomized controlled trial employing actual doctor-patient interactions during CST. METHODS: This randomized multicenter trial is conducted at three departments of oncology in Denmark. Doctors are randomized 1:1 to the intervention and control groups. The intervention group involves participation in three full days of On-site SCT facilitated by a trained psychologist. On-site SCT focuses on imparting communication techniques, establishing a reflective learning environment, and offering emotional support with a compassionate mindset. The primary endpoint is the change in percentage of items rated "excellent" by the patients in the validated 15-item questionnaire Communication Assessment Tool. The secondary endpoints are changes in doctors' ratings of self-efficacy in health communication, burnout, and job satisfaction measured by validated questionnaires. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with the doctors after the intervention to evaluate its relevance, feasibility, and working mechanisms. Doctors have been actively recruited during summer/autumn 2023. Baseline questionnaires from patients have been collected. Recruitment of new patients for evaluation questionnaires is scheduled for Q1-Q2 2024. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to quantify On-site SCT efficacy. If it significantly impacts patients/doctors, it can be a scalable CST concept for clinical practice. Additionally, qualitative interviews will reveal doctors' insight into the most comprehensible curriculum parts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: April 2023 - ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05842083). April 2023 - The Research Ethics Committee at the University of Southern Denmark (23/19397).

Patient experiences and needs in cancer care- results from a nationwide cross-sectional study in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centredness has become a central quality indicator for oncology care. Elements include shared decision-making, patient navigation and integration of psychosocial care, which impact patient-reported and clinical outcomes. Despite efforts to promote patient-centred care in Germany in recent decades, implementation remains fragmented. Further, research on patient experiences with cancer care and its determinants is limited. Therefore, this study examines which patient- and facility-specific factors are associated with patient-centred quality care delivery. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 1,121 cancer patients in acute treatment, rehabilitation, and aftercare for different cancer entities across Germany. A participatory developed questionnaire was used. Outcome measures were the quality of physician-patient interaction and provision of psychosocial care during acute care. Predictors comprised patient-specific characteristics and treatment facility-specific factors. Multiple linear regression and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses were performed. In addition, a content analysis of open-ended comments on the patients' overall cancer care needs was applied. RESULTS: Multiple linear regression analysis showed recent diagnosis (ß=-0.12, p = < 0.001), being male (ß=-0.11, p = 0.003), and having a preference for passive decision-making (ß=-0.10, p = 0.001) to be significantly associated with higher interaction quality, but not age, education and health insurance type. An overall low impact of patient characteristics on interaction quality was revealed (adj. R2 = 0.03). Binary logistic regression analysis demonstrated the availability of central contact persons (OR = 3.10, p < 0.001) followed by recent diagnosis (p < 0.001), having breast cancer (p < 0.001) and being female (OR = 1.68, p < 0.05) to significantly predict offering psycho-oncological counselling to patients in acute care facilities. The availability of peer support visiting services (OR = 7.17, p < 0.001) and central contact persons (OR = 1.87, p < 0.001) in the care facility, breast cancer diagnosis (p < 0.001) and a higher level of education (p < 0.05) significantly increased the odds of patients receiving information about peer support in the treatment facility. Despite relatively satisfactory quality of physician-patient interactions in cancer care (M = 3.5 (± 1.1)), many patients expressed that better patient-centred communication and coordinated, comprehensive cancer care are needed. CONCLUSION: The findings reflect effective developments and improvements in cancer care and suggest that patients' social characteristics are less decisive for delivering patient-centred quality care than systemic factors surrounding the care facilities. They can serve to inform oncology care in Germany.

Oncology patients' willingness to report their medication safety concerns from home: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Oncology patients often struggle to manage their medications and related adverse events during transitions of care. They are expected to take an active role in self-monitoring and timely reporting of their medication safety events or concerns to clinicians. The purpose of this study was to explore the factors influencing oncology patients' willingness to report adverse events or concerns related to their medication after their transitions back home. METHODS: A qualitative interview study was conducted with adult patients with breast, prostate, lung, or colorectal cancer who experienced care transitions within the previous year. A semi-structured interview guide was developed to understand patients' perceptions of reporting mediation-related safety events or concerns from home. All interviews were conducted via phone calls, recorded, and transcribed for thematic data analysis. RESULTS: A total of 41 individuals participated in the interviews. Three main themes and six subthemes emerged, including patients' perceived relationship with clinicians (the quality of communication and trust in clinicians), perceived severity of adverse medication events (perceived severe vs. non-severe events), and patient activation in self-management (self-efficacy in self-management and engagement in monitoring health outcomes). CONCLUSION: The patient-clinician relationship significantly affects patients' reporting behaviors, which can potentially interact with other factors, including the severity of adverse events. It is important to engage oncology patients in medication safety self-reporting from home by enhancing health communication, understanding patients' perceptions of severe events, and promoting patient activation. By addressing these efforts, healthcare providers should adopt a more patient-centered approach to enhance the overall quality and safety of oncological care.

Psychosocial and palliative care in African national cancer control plans: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Low and middle income countries of Africa account for a disproportionate amount of the global health burden of cancer. Providing patients access to psychosocial oncology and palliative care through policy structures such as the National Cancer Control Plans (NCCP) is essential to improving the care provided to patients and their families. The first phase of this study sought to determine the extent to which palliative care and psychosocial oncology were integrated in NCCPs in African countries. METHODS: A qualitative thematic analysis of the plans was used using Nvivo, with two-raters coding and continuous team discussions. Data were organized into an infographic map showing the coverage of themes across African countries. RESULTS: Fifty-eight NCCPs and NCD plans were analyzed in the 54 countries in Africa. The findings illustrate a lack of standardization across countries' NCCPs in addressing psychosocial oncology and palliative care themes. Certain areas presented good coverage across several plans, such as barriers to access, education, awareness, and health behaviors, coordination of care, families, caregivers and community involvement, and palliative care. Other themes presented low coverage, such as doctor-patient communication, mental health, bereavement, psychosocial care, survivorship care, and traditional medicine. CONCLUSIONS: One may consider further developing NCCP areas as they pertain to psychosocial oncology and palliative care to ensure their proper place on the policy agenda for a healthier Africa.

Family Medicine Clinician Screening and Barriers to Communication on Food Insecurity: A CERA General Membership Survey.

PURPOSE: Food insecurity (FI) is a hidden epidemic associated with worsening health outcomes affecting 33.8 million people in the US in 2021. Although studies demonstrate the importance of health care clinician assessment of a patient's food insecurity, little is known about whether Family Medicine clinicians (FMC) discuss FI with patients and what barriers influence their ability to communicate about FI. This study evaluated FM clinicians' food insecurity screening practices to evaluate screening disparities and identify barriers that influence the decision to communicate about FI. METHODS: Data were gathered and analyzed as part of the 2022 Council of Academic Family Medicine's Educational Research Alliance survey of Family Medicine general membership. RESULTS: The majority of respondents reported (66.9%) that their practice has a screening system for food insecurity, and most practices used a verbal screen with staff other than the clinician (41%) at specific visits (63.8%). Clinicians reported "rarely or never asking about FI" 40% of the time and only asking "always or frequently" 6.7% of the time. Inadequate time during appointments (44.5%) and other medical issues taking priority (29.4%) were identified as the most common barriers. The lack of resources available in the community was a significant barrier for clinicians who worked in rural areas. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides insight into food insecurity screening disparities and identifies obstacles to FMC screening, such as time constraints, lack of resources, and knowledge of available resources. Understanding current communication practices could create opportunities for interventions to identify food insecurity and impact "Food as Medicine."

What Complexity Science Predicts About the Potential of Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning to Improve Primary Care.

Primary care physicians are likely both excited and apprehensive at the prospects for artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML). Complexity science may provide insight into which AI/ML applications will most likely affect primary care in the future. AI/ML has successfully diagnosed some diseases from digital images, helped with administrative tasks such as writing notes in the electronic record by converting voice to text, and organized information from multiple sources within a health care system. AI/ML has less successfully recommended treatments for patients with complicated single diseases such as cancer; or improved diagnosing, patient shared decision making, and treating patients with multiple comorbidities and social determinant challenges. AI/ML has magnified disparities in health equity, and almost nothing is known of the effect of AI/ML on primary care physician-patient relationships. An intervention in Victoria, Australia showed promise where an AI/ML tool was used only as an adjunct to complex medical decision making. Putting these findings in a complex adaptive system framework, AI/ML tools will likely work when its tasks are limited in scope, have clean data that are mostly linear and deterministic, and fit well into existing workflows. AI/ML has rarely improved comprehensive care, especially in primary care settings, where data have a significant number of errors and inconsistencies. Primary care should be intimately involved in AI/ML development, and its tools carefully tested before implementation; and unlike electronic health records, not just assumed that AI/ML tools will improve primary care work life, quality, safety, and person-centered clinical decision making.

Parent and oncologist perspectives on prognostic disclosure in advanced childhood cancer: communication pearls and pitfalls.

PURPOSE: For children with advanced cancer and their families, communication about prognosis is critical. Unfortunately, data demonstrate that prognostic communication occurs infrequently and inconsistently across advancing illness. Prior to developing an intervention to improve prognostic communication, we aimed to (1) characterize parent and oncologist perspectives on "best" approaches for prognostic communication, and (2) explore similarities and differences between parent and oncologist perspectives. METHODS: Children with poor-prognosis solid tumors, their parents, and oncologists were followed prospectively for 24 months or until death. Matched semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents and oncologists 0-7 days after medical encounters at timepoints of disease progression or relapse. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted to describe parent and oncologist impressions of communication quality. RESULTS: A total of 68 interviews were conducted following serial disease reevaluation encounters involving 13 parents and five oncologists. Nine main themes were identified as "best" approaches: (1) speaking with honesty and clarity, (2) leaving room for hope, (3) leaning into a long-standing relationship, (4) personalizing language, (5) empowering the patient and family, (6) collaborating with the multidisciplinary team, (7) providing anticipatory guidance, (8) setting the scene, and (9) creating a therapeutic space. Parents and oncologists generally agreed on themes related to helpful communication approaches, while parents more explicitly described communication pitfalls. CONCLUSION: Parents and oncologists described clear recommendations for helpful communication strategies and pitfalls to avoid during difficult prognostic disclosure. Future work should integrate patient perspectives in the design and testing of an intervention to improve prognostic communication in advanced childhood cancer.

The impact of decision tools during oncological consultation with lung cancer patients: A systematic review within the I3LUNG project.

INTRODUCTION: To date, lung cancer is one of the most lethal diagnoses worldwide. A variety of lung cancer treatments and modalities are available, which are generally presented during the patient and doctor consultation. The implementation of decision tools to facilitate patient's decision-making and the management of their healthcare process during medical consultation is fundamental. Studies have demonstrated that decision tools are helpful to promote health management and decision-making of lung cancer patients during consultations. The main aim of the present work within the I3LUNG project is to systematically review the implementation of decision tools to facilitate medical consultation about oncological treatments for lung cancer patients. METHODS: In the present study, we conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines. We used an electronic computer-based search involving three databases, as follows: Embase, PubMed, and Scopus. 10 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included. They explicitly refer to decision tools in the oncological context, with lung cancer patients. RESULTS: The discussion highlights the most encouraging results about the positive role of decision aids during medical consultations about oncological treatments, especially regarding anxiety, decision-making, and patient knowledge. However, no one main decision aid tool emerged as essential. Opting for a more recent timeframe to select eligible articles might shed light on the current array of decision aid tools available. CONCLUSION: Future review efforts could utilize alternative search strategies to explore other lung cancer-specific outcomes during medical consultations for treatment decisions and the implementation of decision aid tools. Engaging with experts in the fields of oncology, patient decision-making, or health communication could provide valuable insights and recommendations for relevant literature or research directions that may not be readily accessible through traditional search methods. The development of guidelines for future research were provided with the aim to promote decision aids focused on patients' needs.

Shared decision-making needs, barriers, and facilitators of patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer in the hospital: a multi-level, mixed-methods study.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the shared decision-making (SDM) needs, barriers, and facilitators of patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer in the hospital. Understanding this may improve SDM and cancer care quality in this vulnerable population. METHODS: A single-site, mixed-methods study of hospitalized patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer, caregivers, and oncologists was conducted. After discharge, patient ± caregiver semi-structured interviews exploring SDM needs, barriers, and facilitators regarding their most important upcoming cancer-related decision were conducted. Oncologists were surveyed about patient knowledge and SDM needs using closed- and open-ended questions, respectively. Thematic analysis was performed for qualitative data with a focus on themes unique to or amplified by hospitalization. Descriptive statistics and the Chi-squared test were performed for quantitative data. RESULTS: Patients and caregivers reported high SDM needs surrounding treatment and prognostic information, leading to decisional conflict. Eight themes emerged: anticipated cancer treatment decisions, variable control preferences in decision-making, high cancer-related information needs and uncertainty, barriers and facilitators to information gathering during and post hospitalization, and decision-making facilitators. Among 32 oncologists, most (56%) reported patients were poorly informed about treatment and prognosis. Oncologists reported variable expectations about patient knowledge after hospitalization, facilitators to patient decision-making, and patient uncertainty while awaiting an outpatient oncologist appointment. CONCLUSION: Patients newly diagnosed with advanced cancer in the hospital have high SDM needs and experience decisional conflict. This may be due to barriers unique to or exacerbated by hospitalization. Further research is needed to develop strategies to address these barriers and enhance the facilitators identified in this study.

The experience of shared decision-making for people with asthma: A systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative studies.

OBJECTIVES: To identify, describe and synthesise the views and experiences of adults living with asthma regarding shared decision-making (SDM) in the existing qualitative literature METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of 10 databases (list databases) from inception until September 2023. Screening was performed according to inclusion criteria. Tools from the Joanna Briggs lnstitute were utilised for the purposes of data extraction and synthesis in this study. The data extraction process in this study employed the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B model) as a framework, and a pragmatic meta-aggregative approach was employed to synthesise the collected results. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included in the metasynthesis. Three synthesised themes were identified: the capability of people living with asthma, the opportunities of people living with asthma in SDM, and the motivation of the people living with asthma in SDM. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified specific factors influencing people living with asthma engaging in SDM. The findings of this study can serve as a basis for the implementation of SDM in people living with asthma and provide insights for the development of their SDM training programs. The ConQual score for the synthesised findings was rated as low. To enhance confidence, future studies should address dependability and credibility factors. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This review contemplates the implementation of SDM from the perspective of people living with asthma, with the aim of providing patient-centred services for them. The results of this review can benefit the implementation of SDM and facilitate information sharing. It offers guidance for SDM skills training among adults living with asthma, fosters a better doctor-patient relationship and facilitates consensus in treatment decisions, thereby enabling personalised and tailored medical care. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Three nursing graduate students participated in the data extraction and integration process, with two students having extensive clinical experience that provided valuable insights for the integration.

Perception of Patients, Physicians, and Chaperones Regarding the Use of Chaperones During Patient Examinations for Plastic Surgery: A Systematic Review.

In this systematic review, we searched electronic databases for literature addressing physician use of chaperones during examinations of patients undergoing plastic surgery from the perspective of the patient, physician, and chaperone from inception of the database until April 2023. After screening 939 articles, we included seven studies in a systematic review. We conducted an inductive thematic analysis of four domains (physician perspective, patient perspective, chaperone perspective, and chaperone documentation). The results of the analysis showed that surgeons who are experienced, are men, or have received education related to using chaperones are more likely to provide chaperones during patient examinations for medicolegal protection and patient comfort. A small percentage of surgeons have faced accusations from patients of inappropriate behavior. Most of these incidents have occurred without a chaperone present. Patients who have long associations with a particular plastic surgery practice are less likely to want a chaperone. When physicians examine nonsensitive areas, most patients prefer having no chaperone. However, young patients and patients undergoing reconstructive procedures are more likely to request chaperones. Patients prefer having family members or friends serve as chaperones. Notably, despite the presence of a chaperone, we found that documentation of the presence of a chaperone was inadequate. Using a chaperone helps establish trust and ensure patient comfort. Further research, including qualitative studies and multinational approaches, is warranted to gain deeper insights and develop comprehensive guidelines for chaperone use that empowers both patients and health care providers.

Oncologists' perceptions of tumor genomic profiling and barriers to communicating secondary hereditary risks to African American cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Tumor genomic profiling (TGP) identifies targets for precision cancer treatments, but also secondary hereditary risks. Oncologists are poorly trained to communicate the results of TGP, especially among patients with lower health literacy, poorer genetics knowledge, and higher mistrust. African American (AA) patients are especially vulnerable to poor understanding due to significant cancer disparities and lower uptake of TGP. The goal of this research is to inform the development of an internet-based brief educational support for oncologists to prepare them to provide better decisional support related to TGP for their AA cancer patients. METHODS: This mixed-methods study used semi-structured interviews of oncologists to inform development of an online survey with a convenience sample of US-based oncologists (n = 50) to assess perceptions of the challenges of TGP and communicating results to AA patients. RESULTS: Most interviewed oncologists felt it was important to consider racial/cultural differences when communicating about hereditary risks. Cost, family dynamics, discrimination concerns, and medical mistrust were identified as particularly salient. Survey respondents' views related to AAs and perceptions of TGP were strongly associated with years since completing training, with recent graduates expressing stronger agreement with statements identifying barriers/disadvantages to TGP for AA patients. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists who had more recently completed training expressed more negative perceptions of TGP and more perceived challenges in communicating about TGP with their AA patients. Focused training for oncologists that addresses barriers specific to AAs may be helpful in supporting improved communication about TGP and improved decisional support for AA patients with cancer considering TGP to evaluate their tumors.

Large Language Model-Based Evaluation of Medical Question Answering Systems: Algorithm Development and Case Study.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems are increasingly resource constrained, leaving less time for important patient-provider interactions. Conversational agents (CAs) could be used to support the provision of information and to answer patients' questions. However, information must be accessible to a variety of patient populations, which requires understanding questions expressed at different language levels. METHODS: This study describes the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) to evaluate predefined medical content in CAs across patient populations. These simulated populations are characterized by a range of health literacy. The evaluation framework includes both fully automated and semi-automated procedures to assess the performance of a CA. RESULTS: A case study in the domain of mammography shows that LLMs can simulate questions from different patient populations. However, the accuracy of the answers provided varies depending on the level of health literacy. CONCLUSIONS: Our scalable evaluation framework enables the simulation of patient populations with different health literacy levels and helps to evaluate domain specific CAs, thus promoting their integration into clinical practice. Future research aims to extend the framework to CAs without predefined content and to apply LLMs to adapt medical information to the specific (health) literacy level of the user.

Effects of Prognostic Communication Strategies on Prognostic Perceptions, Treatment Decisions and End-Of-Life Anticipation in Advanced Cancer: An Experimental Study among Analogue Patients.

CONTEXT: Evidence-based guidance for oncologists on how to communicate prognosis is scarce. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of prognostic communication strategies (prognostic disclosure vs. communication of unpredictability vs. non-disclosure; standard vs. standard and best-case vs. standard, best- and worst-case survival scenarios; numerical vs. word-based estimates) on prognostic perceptions, treatment decision-making and end-of-life anticipation in advanced cancer. METHODS: This experimental study used eight videos of a scripted oncological consultation, varying only in prognostic communication strategies. Cancer-naive individuals, who imagined being the depicted patient, completed surveys before and after watching one video (n = 1036). RESULTS: Individuals generally perceived dying within 1 year as more likely after prognostic disclosure, compared to communication of unpredictability or non-disclosure (P < 0.001), and after numerical versus word-based estimates (P < 0.001). Individuals felt better informed about prognosis to decide about treatment after prognostic disclosure, compared to communication of unpredictability or non-disclosure (P < 0.001); after communication of unpredictability versus non-disclosure (P < 0.001); and after numerical versus word-based estimates (P = 0.017). Chemotherapy was more often favored after prognostic disclosure versus non-disclosure (P = 0.010), but less often after numerical versus word-based estimates (P < 0.001). Individuals felt more certain about the treatment decision after prognostic disclosure, compared to communication of unpredictability or non-disclosure (P < 0.001). Effects of different survival scenarios were absent. No effects on end-of-life anticipation were observed. Evidence for moderating individual characteristics was limited. CONCLUSION: If and how oncologists discuss prognosis can influence how individuals perceive prognosis, which treatment they prefer, and how they feel about treatment decisions. Communicating numerical estimates may stimulate prognostic understanding and informed treatment decision-making.

Development of a communication platform for patients with head and neck cancer for effective information delivery and improvement of doctor-patient relationship: application of treatment journey-based service blueprint.

BACKGROUND: Effective communication and information delivery enhance doctor-patient relationships, improves adherence to treatment, reduces work burden, and supports decision-making. The study developed a head and neck cancer (HNC) communication platform to support effective delivery of information about HNC treatment and improve the doctor-patient relationship. METHODS: This study was structured in three main phases: 1) The requirement elicitation phase sought an understanding of the HNC treatment journey and service failure points (FPs) obtained through patient/medical staff interviews and observations, along with a review of the electronic health record system; 2) The development phase involved core needs analysis, solutions development through a co-creation workshop, and validation of the solutions through focus groups; and 3) the proposed HNC communication platform was integrated with the current treatment system, and the flow and mechanism of the interacting services were structured using a service blueprint (SB). RESULTS: Twenty-two service FPs identified through interviews and observations were consolidated into four core needs, and solutions were proposed to address each need: an HNC treatment journey map, cancer survivor stories, operation consent redesign with surgical illustrations, and a non-verbal communication toolkit. The communication platform was designed through the SB in terms of the stage at which the solution was applied and the actions and interactions of the service providers. CONCLUSIONS: The developed platform has practical significance, reflecting a tangible service improvement for both patients and medical staff, making it applicable in hospital settings.

Uncertainty tolerance among primary care physicians: Relationship to shared decision making-related perceptions, practices, and physician characteristics.

OBJECTIVE: Understand how physicians' uncertainty tolerance (UT) in clinical care relates to their personal characteristics, perceptions and practices regarding shared decision making (SDM). METHODS: As part of a trial of SDM training about colorectal cancer screening, primary care physicians (n = 67) completed measures of their uncertainty tolerance in medical practice (Anxiety subscale of the Physician's Reactions to Uncertainty Scale, PRUS-A), and their SDM self-efficacy (confidence in SDM skills). Patients (N = 466) completed measures of SDM (SDM Process scale) after a clinical visit. Bivariate regression analyses and multilevel regression analyses examined relationships. RESULTS: Higher UT was associated with greater physician age (p = .01) and years in practice (p = 0.015), but not sex or race. Higher UT was associated with greater SDM self-efficacy (p < 0.001), but not patient-reported SDM. CONCLUSION: Greater age and practice experience predict greater physician UT, suggesting that UT might be improved through training, while UT is associated with greater confidence in SDM, suggesting that improving UT might improve SDM. However, UT was unassociated with patient-reported SDM, raising the need for further studies of these relationships. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Developing and implementing training interventions aimed at increasing physician UT may be a promising way to promote SDM in clinical care.

Shared decision-making in palliative cancer care: A systematic review and metasynthesis.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making is a key element of person-centred care and promoted as the favoured model in preference-sensitive decision-making. Limitations to implementation have been observed, and barriers and limitations, both generally and in the palliative setting, have been highlighted. More knowledge about the process of shared decision-making in palliative cancer care would assist in addressing these limitations. AIM: To identify and synthesise qualitative data on how people with cancer, informal carers and healthcare professionals experience and perceive shared decision-making in palliative cancer care. DESIGN: A systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative studies. We analysed data using inductive thematic analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Scopus) from inception until June 2023, supplemented by backward searches. RESULTS: We identified and included 23 studies, reported in 26 papers. Our analysis produced four analytical themes; (1) Overwhelming situation of 'no choice', (2) Processes vary depending on the timings and nature of the decisions involved, (3) Patient-physician dyad is central to decision-making, with surrounding support and (4) Level of involvement depends on interactions between individuals and systems. CONCLUSION: Shared decision-making in palliative cancer care is a complex process of many decisions in a challenging, multifaceted and evolving situation where equipoise and choice are limited. Implications for practice: Implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice requires (1) clarifying conceptual confusion, (2) including members of the interprofessional team in the shared decision-making process and (3) adapting the approach to the ambiguous, existential situations which arise in palliative cancer care.