Communication Preferences in Young, Middle-Aged, and Elderly Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: While psychosocial distress and supportive care needs of young adult cancer patients have been increasingly studied, little knowledge exists about preferences for communicating bad news. We aimed to analyze patients' communication preferences against their actual experiences with regard to doctor-patient interactions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We surveyed a total of 270 cancer patients with different tumor entities. 3 age groups (young, middle-aged, and elderly) were compared concerning their communication preferences (MPP; Measure of Patients' Preferences questionnaire) and the impact on distress (National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer). RESULTS: We found no age differences of communication preferences and the content of bad news. A significant difference was found in the dimension 'professional expertise/patient orientation (p < 0.01) which was rated as more important by younger patients. Binary logistic regression showed an impact of 'children' (odds ratio (OR) 0.296; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.155, 0.563), tumor staging (OR 1.737, 95% CI 1.028, 2.936), and insufficient 'privacy' (OR 0.987; 95% CI 0.978, 0.997) and 'clarity' (OR 1.013; 95% CI 1.002, 1.025) on distress. CONCLUSION: Communication preferences related to breaking bad news depend less on age differences than on other variables. Future studies should investigate the long-term impact of ineffective patient-physician communication, taking into account unmet patient preferences in different age groups.

Psychometric properties of the German version of the Short-Form Supportive Care Needs Survey Questionnaire (SCNS-SF34-G).

PURPOSE: The recommendation to screen for distress and supportive care needs among cancer patients focuses on improving the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of comprehensive cancer care. The purpose of this study was to test the psychometric properties of the German version of the Short-Form Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS-SF34-G). METHODS: One thousand forty-seven participants with heterogeneous tumor entities were recruited in inpatient and outpatient cancer care facilities (female, 51%; median age, 57 years; breast cancer, 26%; prostate cancer, 22%). Concurrent and divergent validity of the SCNS-SF34-G was analyzed through associations with measures of distress, depression, anxiety, and social support. RESULTS: Principal component analyses revealed five dimensions replicating the factorial structure of the original SCNS-SF34 (health system and information, psychological, physical and daily living, patient care and support, sexuality needs) explaining 68% of variance. Cronbach's alpha values ranged from 0.82 to 0.94. Convergent validity was supported by significant correlations between all SCNS-SF34-G subscales and psychosocial burden. Divergent validity was indicated by marginal correlations with social support. The SCNS-SF34-G was able to discriminate patient groups with respect to sex and age but not regarding tumor stage. CONCLUSIONS: The SCNS-SF34-G is an instrument with excellent psychometric properties for assessing supportive care needs among patients with various cancer entities. It seems to be useful to integrate the questionnaire into diagnostic assessment to tailor interventions according to patient needs. Further research is needed to gain knowledge of the development of unmet needs during the illness trajectory as well as of associations with offer and utilization of healthcare services.