Evaluation of a patient-centered communication skills training for nurses (KOMPAT): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To ensure high quality of nurses' communication as part of patient-centered care, training of communication skills is essential. Previous studies indicate that communication skills trainings can improve communication skills of nurses and have a positive effect on emotional and psychological burden. However, most show methodological limitations, are not specifically developed for nurses or were developed for oncological setting only. METHODS: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a needs-based communication skills training for nursing professionals and to derive indications for future implementation. A two-armed randomized controlled trial including components from both effectiveness and implementation research will be applied. Additionally, a comprehensive process evaluation will be carried out to derive indications for future implementation. Nurses (n=180) of a university medical center in Germany will be randomized to intervention or waitlist-control group. The intervention was developed based on the wishes and needs of nurses, previously assessed via interviews and focus groups. Outcomes to measure effectiveness were selected based on Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation and will be assessed at baseline, post-training and at 4-weeks follow-up. Primary outcome will be nurses' self-reported self-efficacy regarding communication skills. Secondary outcomes include nurses' communication skills assessed via standardized patient assessment, knowledge about patient-centered communication, mental and work-related burden, and participants' satisfaction with training. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study systematically evaluating the effectiveness of a patient-centered communication skills training for nursing professionals in Germany. Results will yield insight whether a needs-based intervention can improve nurses' self-efficacy regarding communication skills and other secondary outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration number: NCT05700929, trial register: ClinicalTrials.gov (date of registration: 16 November 2022).

Effectiveness of a training program for healthcare professionals on parental cancer: Results of a randomized controlled pilot-study.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer patients parenting minor children face specific burden and supportive needs, which are often not adequately addressed by their healthcare professionals (HCPs), due to a lack of knowledge, self-efficacy and competencies. Therefore, we developed a 3-h intervention enhancing HCPs' competencies in caring for these patients. We pilot-evaluated the intervention's feasibility and efficacy, assuming intervention group participants reveal higher improvements over time compared to non-trained participants. METHODS: We conducted a 3-armed randomized controlled pilot-trial (RCT), comparing face-to-face training (F2F), e-Learning (EL), waitlist-control group with three measurements (baseline, post-training, 3-month follow-up). Primary outcome was the competency to approach child- and family-related themes; secondary outcomes were knowledge, self-efficacy in (specific) communication skills. Intervention effects were analyzed using linear mixed models. RESULTS: Participants (n = 152) were mostly female (89%) and psychologists (38%; physicians 26%; nurses 18%). F2F and EL participants reported high training satisfaction. Analyses did not reveal any significant differences on the primary outcome between groups, but indicate positive intervention effects over time regarding secondary outcomes including knowledge and self-efficacy in communication skills. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first pilot-study evaluating a training for HCPs in oncology on parental cancer using a 3-armed RCT. The 3-h training program is a feasible approach and findings indicate to increase HCPs' knowledge and self-efficacy in caring for cancer patients with minor children. Further research is needed to verify preliminary findings of this pilot study. The study was pre-registered within the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS-00015794).

Major influencing factors on routine implementation of shared decision-making in cancer care: qualitative process evaluation of a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) is highly relevant in oncology but rarely implemented in routine care. In a stepped-wedge cluster randomized implementation trial, the outcome evaluation of a theoretically and empirically based multi-component SDM implementation program did not show a statistically significant effect on patient-reported SDM uptake. Within this SDM implementation trial, a thorough a priori planned process evaluation was conducted. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate factors influencing SDM implementation in the context of a multi-component SDM implementation program. METHODS: We conducted qualitative process evaluation of a stepped-wedge SDM implementation trial. Qualitative data included interviews with nurses and physicians of participating departments, field notes by the study team, and meeting minutes. Data were analyzed via deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis on basis of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS: Transcripts of 107 interviews with 126 nurses and physicians, 304 pages of field note documentation, and 125 pages of meeting minutes were analyzed. Major factors influencing SDM implementation were found for all domains of the CFIR: a) four regarding characteristics of the individuals involved (e.g., perceived personal relevance, individual motivation to change), b) eleven regarding the inner setting (e.g., leadership engagement, networks and communication, available resources, compatibility with clinical practice), c) two regarding the outer setting (e.g., culture of health care delivery), d) eight regarding characteristics of the intervention (e.g., relative advantage, adaptability), and e) three regarding the implementation process (e.g., integration into existing structures). Furthermore, we found strong interrelations between several of the influencing factors within and between domains. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive process evaluation complements the outcome evaluation of the SDM implementation trial and adds to its interpretation. The identified influencing factors can be used for planning, conducting, and evaluating SDM implementation in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03393351, registered 8 January 2018, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03393351.

The impact of cancer on the mental health of patients parenting minor children: A systematic review of quantitative evidence.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of quantitative data on the impact of cancer on the mental health of patients parenting minor children. We focused on mental health outcomes, their levels and prevalence, and applied measurement tools. METHODS: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Web of Science were searched up to March 2021. We included quantitative studies, published in a peer-reviewed journal and reporting outcomes on the mental health (e.g., depression, anxiety) of cancer patients parenting minor children (≤ 21 years). Study quality was assessed based on the National Institute for Health assessment tool for observational studies. This study is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019141954). RESULTS: A total of 54 articles based on 36 different studies were included in this systematic review. Studies differ markedly regarding study and sample characteristics (e.g., outcome measures, sample size, parental health status). Depression and anxiety levels range from normal to abnormal, according to applied measurement tools. 7%-83% of parents with cancer have depression scores indicating probable depression and 19%-88% have anxiety scores indicating anxiety disorder. CONCLUSIONS: This review reveals the dimension of mental burden affecting cancer patients parenting minor children. To identify, address and timely treat potentially arising mental health problems and support needs, affected parents should be closely monitored by healthcare professionals and referred to specialized support offers, if necessary. In the context of a comprehensive patient- and family-oriented care, it is highly relevant to integrate mental health (including parental) issues routinely into oncological care by proactively asking for the patient's psychosocial situation and the family status.

Assessing competencies of healthcare professionals caring for parents with cancer: The development of an innovative assessment tool.

OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the development of an assessment tool capturing competencies of healthcare professionals (HCPs) in caring for cancer patients with minor children. METHODS: We combined the methods of clinical case vignettes and situational judgement tests (SJTs). Scenarios were created based on literature and interviews with patients, HCPs, and experts. We pretested the instrument by conducting cognitive interviews with n = 6 HCPs, who gave feedback on realism, clarity, and difficulty of the scenarios. RESULTS: The developed assessment tool measures the following competencies: HCPs' (1) application of knowledge, (2) behavioural responses to clinical scenarios, (3) attitudes regarding the relevance of integrating the parental role in cancer care, and (4) empathic behaviour towards affected parents. Results of the cognitive interviews indicate that the scenarios are perceived as realistic and clear. CONCLUSIONS: We provide an innovative approach by methodologically combining clinical case vignettes and SJTs. Next, the assessment tool will be applied in the context of a pilot evaluation of a newly developed training for HCPs that aims at enhancing their competencies in caring for cancer patients with minor children.

Adaptation and qualitative evaluation of Ask 3 Questions - a simple and generic intervention to foster patient empowerment.

BACKGROUND: Patients are often not actively engaged in medical encounters. Short interventions like Ask 3 Questions (Ask3Q) can increase patient participation in decision-making. Up to now, Ask3Q was not available in German. OBJECTIVE: To translate Ask3Q and evaluate its acceptability and feasibility. METHODS: We translated and adapted several English versions of Ask3Q using a team translation protocol and cognitive interviews. Acceptability and feasibility of the final German Ask3Q version were assessed via focus groups and interviews with patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Data were analysed via qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Translation and adaptation were successful. Participants of focus groups and interviews perceived Ask3Q as a tool to empower patients to ask more questions. Moreover, it was seen as a guideline for physicians not to forget conveying important information. Several characteristics of patients, HCPs, the clinical setting and the intervention were identified as facilitators and barriers for an effective implementation of Ask3Q. CONCLUSION: We provide the German version of Ask3Q. According to participants, implementation of Ask3Q in the German healthcare system is feasible. Future studies should evaluate if positive effects of Ask3Q can be replicated for patient participation and communication behaviour of HCPs in Germany.

Supportive and psychosocial peer-group interventions for children and adolescents of parents with cancer: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Children and adolescents are highly affected by their parents` cancer disease. This review aims to summarize peer-group interventions for children and adolescents of cancer patients, where those affected have the opportunity to exchange and normalize their feelings among equals. METHODS: A systematic review searching four different databases (MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Web of Science) was conducted. We included studies investigating psychosocial peer-group interventions for offspring of cancer patients. A narrative synthesis summarised the characteristics of the interventions and the findings on effects and evaluation. RESULTS: Ten articles on seven different peer-group interventions were analysed. Research designs and intervention concepts were heterogeneous. Overall, high acceptance, feasibility and positive effects of peer-group support were reported. Significant effects were found in six studies, e.g. in relation to psychological well-being, quality of life and coping skills. CONCLUSION: Peer-group interventions are an accepted and helpful form of support. Providing children and adolescents of cancer patients for example with psychoeducation, community and coping strategies, thereby impacting on psychological well-being. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: For comprehensive care, it seems to be important to offer support throughout the parent's cancer journey and to offer support flexibly as needed through group services as well as individual sessions.

Exploring the perspectives of cancer patients parenting minor children: A qualitative study on family-centered cancer care experiences.

OBJECTIVES: Parents with cancer experience not only disease-related burden but also child- and family-related concerns. According to the German guidelines, all professionals working in oncology are responsible for addressing these burdens and needs and for involving the patient's relatives. This study aims to explore patients' perspectives on their experiences regarding family-centeredness in cancer care. METHODS: We conducted interviews with 18 cancer patients parenting at least one minor child (< 18). The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Most parents reported that their healthcare professionals (HCPs) rarely or not routinely discussed family issues. There was a wide range of ways in which HCPs communicated about family issues. Parents often felt unsure about professionals' responsibilities and many of them expressed a desire for more proactive communication. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the majority of patients have unmet needs related to comprehensive care as parents. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: HCPs need to be sensitized to identify parents facing additional burdens and needs. It is essential that HCPs clarify parents' preferences regarding the extent of involvement of family issues in cancer care.

Child- and family-specific communication skills trainings for healthcare professionals caring for families with parental cancer: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: As part of high-quality cancer care, healthcare professionals (HCPs) play a significant role in identifying and addressing specific needs of cancer patients parenting minor children. However, HCPs experience various barriers to adequately support parents with cancer. This systematic review explores current CSTs incorporating child- and family- specific modules for HCPs in oncology. Moreover, outcome measures and effectiveness of trainings are systematically investigated. METHODS: The systematic review was registered within PROSPERO (registration code: CRD42020139783). Systematic searches were performed in four databases (PubMed, Cinahl, PsycInfo, Web of Science) in 12/2020, including an update in 12/2021 and 08/2022. Quantitative, primary studies fulfilling the pre-defined inclusion criteria were included. Due to the expected heterogeneity a meta-analysis was not conducted. Study selection and quality assessment were conducted by two independent researchers, data extraction by one. Study quality was assessed using an adapted version of the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool for pre-post studies without control group. RESULTS: Nine studies were included in this review following an experimental pre-post design only. Two CSTs were specifically designed to improve communication with cancer patients parenting minor children, the remaining seven incorporated a brief family module only. Seven programs were face-to-face trainings, one an e-learning and one a webinar. Eight studies found at least one statistically significant improvement in communication after training. However, quality of most studies was fair. CONCLUSION: This is the first review exploring specific CSTs for HCPs caring for cancer patients parenting minor children. As only two CSTs focused on parental cancer, evidence on the effectiveness of such CSTs is limited. Existing CSTs should be evaluated properly and include details on content of family modules. Further studies including and evaluating specific CSTs focusing on parental cancer are needed in order to strengthen HCPs' competencies to meet specific needs of patients parenting minor children.

Evaluation of a program for routine implementation of shared decision-making in cancer care: results of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) is preferred by many patients in cancer care. However, despite scientific evidence and promotion by health policy makers, SDM implementation in routine health care lags behind. This study aimed to evaluate an empirically and theoretically grounded implementation program for SDM in cancer care. METHODS: In a stepped wedge design, three departments of a comprehensive cancer center sequentially received the implementation program in a randomized order. It included six components: training for health care professionals (HCPs), individual coaching for physicians, patient activation intervention, patient information material/decision aids, revision of quality management documents, and reflection on multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs). Outcome evaluation comprised four measurement waves. The primary endpoint was patient-reported SDM uptake using the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire. Several secondary implementation outcomes were assessed. A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted to evaluate reach and fidelity. Data were analyzed using mixed linear models, qualitative content analysis, and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 2,128 patient questionnaires, 559 questionnaires from 408 HCPs, 132 audio recordings of clinical encounters, and 842 case discussions from 66 MDTMs were evaluated. There was no statistically significant improvement in the primary endpoint SDM uptake. Patients in the intervention condition were more likely to experience shared or patient-lead decision-making than in the control condition (d=0.24). HCPs in the intervention condition reported more knowledge about SDM than in the control condition (d = 0.50). In MDTMs the quality of psycho-social information was lower in the intervention than in the control condition (d = - 0.48). Further secondary outcomes did not differ statistically significantly between conditions. All components were implemented in all departments, but reach was limited (e.g., training of 44% of eligible HCPs) and several adaptations occurred (e.g., reduced dose of coaching). CONCLUSIONS: The process evaluation provides possible explanations for the lack of statistically significant effects in the primary and most of the secondary outcomes. Low reach and adaptations, particularly in dose, may explain the results. Other or more intensive approaches are needed for successful department-wide implementation of SDM in routine cancer care. Further research is needed to understand factors influencing implementation of SDM in cancer care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03393351 , registered 8 January 2018.

Process-evaluation and outcome-evaluation of a training programme for healthcare professionals in oncology to enhance their competencies in caring for patients with minor children: a study protocol for a randomised controlled pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with cancer having minor children experience particular burden and strains. Being patient and parent at the same time is associated with specific needs of support. Therefore, the communication of child-related and family-related issues plays an important role in patient care. This study aims at testing the feasibility of a training to improve the situation of patients with cancer having minor children and their families by enhancing the competencies of healthcare professionals (HCPs, eg, physicians, nurses, psychologists) in caring for patients with cancer having minor children. Moreover, the study aims at testing the study design and outcomes of the evaluation concept and preliminary effects of the training. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a randomised controlled pilot trial with three arms (face-to-face training versus web-based training versus waitlist control group) to investigate the study aims. Primary outcome will be the competency to approach child-related and family-related topics in patients with cancer measured using comprehensive case vignettes. Secondary outcomes will be communication and attitudes regarding child-related and family-related topics and self-efficacy in clinical communication skills. Outcomes will be assessed prior to the training and after the training as well as 3 months after the training. Data will be analysed using descriptive analyses, group comparisons and linear mixed models. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Local Psychological Ethics Committee of the Center for Psychosocial Medicine of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (LPEK-001). At the end of the study, a web-based training and a face-to-face training intervention to enhance the competencies of HCPs in caring for patients with cancer having minor children will have been systematically developed and the study design and evaluation concept will have been evaluated. The results of the study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00015794.

Assessment of patient information needs: A systematic review of measures.

BACKGROUND: Providing patient information is a central aspect of patient-centered care. Fulfilling personal information needs has positive effects on several health-related outcomes. Measurement instruments help to identify individual information needs in an effective way. The present study gives an overview of existing information needs measures and further evaluates the quality of their psychometric properties and their psychometric studies. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search on psychometric studies of measures that assess information needs in PubMed and Embase. Furthermore, we carried out a secondary search with reference and citation tracking of the included articles. Title, abstracts and full texts were screened by two independent reviewers for eligibility. We extracted data on content of the measures, validation samples and psychometric properties. In addition we rated the methodological quality with the COSMIN checklist and the quality of psychometric properties with the criteria of Terwee and colleagues. RESULTS: 24 studies on 21 measures were included. Most instruments assessed information needs of patients with cancer or cardiac diseases. The majority of the instruments were in English language and from western countries. Most studies included information on internal consistency and content validity. The ratings showed mixed results with clear deficiencies in the methodological quality of most studies. DISCUSSION: This is the first systematic review that summarized the existing evidence on measures on patient information needs using two instruments for a systematic quality assessment. The results show a need for more psychometric studies on existing measures. In addition, reporting on psychometric studies needs to be improved to be able to evaluate the reliability of the psychometric properties. Furthermore, we were not able to identify any measures on information needs for some frequent chronic diseases. Other methods to elicit information needs (e.g. open-ended interviews, question prompt sheets) could be considered as alternatives if sound measures are missing.

Shared Decision-Making in Oncology - A Qualitative Analysis of Healthcare Providers' Views on Current Practice.

BACKGROUND: Despite an increased awareness of shared decision-making (SDM) and its prominent position on the health policy agenda, its implementation in routine care remains a challenge in Germany. In order to overcome this challenge, it is important to understand healthcare providers' views regarding SDM and to take their perspectives and opinions into account in the development of an implementation program. The present study aimed at exploring a) the attitudes of different healthcare providers regarding SDM in oncology and b) their experiences with treatment decisions in daily practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted using focus groups and individual interviews with different healthcare providers at the University Cancer Center Hamburg, Germany. Focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using conventional content analysis and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: N = 4 focus groups with a total of N = 25 participants and N = 17 individual interviews were conducted. Attitudes regarding SDM varied greatly between the different participants, especially concerning the definition of SDM, the attitude towards the degree of patient involvement in decision-making and assumptions about when SDM should take place. Experiences on how treatment decisions are currently made varied. Negative experiences included time and structural constraints, and a lack of (multidisciplinary) communication. Positive experiences comprised informed patients, involvement of relatives and a good physician-patient relationship. CONCLUSION: The results show that German healthcare providers in oncology have a range of attitudes that currently function as barriers towards the implementation of SDM. Also, their experiences on how decision-making is currently done reveal difficulties in actively involving patients in decision-making processes. It will be crucial to take these attitudes and experiences seriously and to subsequently disentangle existing misconceptions in future implementation programs.

Can physical therapists counsel patients with lifestyle-related health conditions effectively? A systematic review and implications.

OBJECTIVE: Healthcare professionals' competence in health behavior change has lagged behind other clinical competencies despite the well-established relationship between lifestyle behavior and health. We conducted a systematic review to examine whether physical therapists, given their unique practice pattern, can counsel effectively. METHODS: Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were assessed from 1950 to July 2010. Studies were limited to the English, German, and Dutch languages. The methodological quality was evaluated (Downs and Black tool). RESULTS: Seven source articles with a mean quality score of 16.57 ± 4.24 points (range: low = 0; high = 28) were retrieved. Given considerable methodological heterogeneity, the studies were compared in a narrative synthesis. The target populations, types and periods of interventions, outcome measures, and findings were analyzed. CONCLUSION: Physical therapists can effectively counsel patients with respect to lifestyle behavior change, at least in the short term. They can be effective health counselors individually or within an interprofessional team. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Multiple health behavior change needs to be a primary twenty-first century clinical competence in physical therapy. Future studies will establish the degree to which effective health counseling augments physical therapy as well as health outcomes, in the long as well as short term.