Characteristics of patients with advanced cancer preferring not to know prognosis: a multicenter survey study.

BACKGROUND: For some patients with advanced cancer not knowing prognosis is essential. Yet, in an era of informed decision-making, the potential protective function of unawareness is easily overlooked. We aimed to investigate 1) the proportion of advanced cancer patients preferring not to know prognosis; 2) the reasons underlying patients' prognostic information preference; 3) the characteristics associated with patients' prognostic information preference; and 4) the concordance between physicians' perceived and patients' actual prognostic information preference. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study with structured surveys (PROSPECT). Medical and thoracic oncologists included patients (n = 524), from seven Dutch hospitals, with metastatic/inoperable cancer and an expected median overall survival of ≤ 12 months. For analysis, descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used. RESULTS: Twenty-five to 31% of patients preferred not to know a general life expectancy estimate or the 5/2/1-year mortality risk. Compared to patients preferring to know prognosis, patients preferring unawareness more often reported optimism, avoidance and inability to comprehend information as reasons for wanting limited information; and less often reported expectations of others, anxiety, autonomy and a sense of control as reasons for wanting complete information. Females (p < .05), patients receiving a further line of systemic treatment (p < .01) and patients with strong fighting spirit (p < .001) were more likely to prefer not to know prognosis. Concordance between physicians' perceived and patients' actual prognostic information preference was poor (kappa = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: We encourage physicians to explore patients' prognostic information preferences and the underlying reasons explicitly, enabling individually tailored communication. Future studies may investigate changes in patients' prognostic information preferences over time and examine the impact of prognostic disclosure on patients who prefer unawareness.

Tailored Web-Based Information for Younger and Older Patients with Cancer: Randomized Controlled Trial of a Preparatory Educational Intervention on Patient Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with cancer, including older patients (aged ≥65 years), consult the Web to prepare for their doctor's visit. In particular, older patients have varying needs regarding the mode in which information is presented (eg, via textual, visual, or audiovisual modes) owing to age-related sensory (eg, impaired vision and hearing) and cognitive decline (eg, reduced processing speed). Therefore, Web-based information targeted at older patient populations is likely to be used and processed more effectively, and evaluated more positively, when tailored to age-related capabilities and preferences. This, in turn, may benefit patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This randomized controlled trial tested the effects of a Web-based tailored educational intervention among newly diagnosed younger (<65 years) and older (≥65 years) patients with cancer. We compared the intervention group who viewed a mode-tailored website (ie, enabling patients to tailor information using textual, visual, and audiovisual modes) with 3 control groups view a nontailored website (ie, text only, text with images, and text with videos). We examined website experience outcomes (ie, website satisfaction, website involvement, knowledge, anxiety, and communication self-efficacy) and consultation experience outcomes (ie, question asking during consultation, anxiety, and information recall). METHODS: Patients from a multidisciplinary outpatient clinic (N=232) viewed a mode-tailored or nontailored website as preparation before their hospital consultations to discuss diagnosis and treatment. Data were collected before (T1), during (T2), and after (T3) visitation. Website experience outcomes were assessed with questionnaires (T1). Patients' question asking was coded from videotaped consultations, and anxiety was assessed through a questionnaire (T2). Telephone interviews were conducted to assess knowledge acquired from the website before (T1) and after consultation (T3), and information recall from the consultation (T3). RESULTS: The preparatory website was well used across all conditions (mean 34 min). Younger patients viewing the mode-tailored website were more satisfied before consultation (P=.02) and reported lower anxiety after consultation (P=.046; vs text only). This pattern was not found in older patients. Mode tailoring yielded no other significant differences in patient outcomes. Regression analyses showed that website involvement (beta=.15; P=.03) and, to a lesser extent, website satisfaction (beta=.15; P=.05) positively associated with knowledge before consultation (T1). In turn, higher knowledge before consultation (beta=.39; P<.001), together with time on the website (beta=.21; P=.002; T1), predicted information recall from consultations (T3). Patients with higher knowledge before consultation (T1) also reported higher knowledge from the website afterward (T3; beta=.22; P=.003). CONCLUSIONS: Offering preparatory online information before consultations benefits information processing and patient outcomes of both younger and older newly diagnosed patients with cancer. Younger patients benefit even more when information is offered in a mode-tailored manner. We discuss the theoretical, methodological, and practical implications for patient-provider communication research in an electronic health era. CLINICAL TRIAL: Netherlands Trial Register NTR5904; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/5750.

Shared decision making about palliative chemotherapy: A qualitative observation of talk about patients' preferences.

BACKGROUND: Particularly at the end of life, treatment decisions should be shared and incorporate patients' preferences. This study examines elaboration and preference construction. AIM: To examine the values, appraisals and preferences that patients express, as well as the oncologists' communicative behaviour that facilitates these expressions in consultations on palliative chemotherapy. DESIGN: Verbatim transcripts of audio-recorded consultations ( n = 60) were analysed in MAXqda10 software. Two independent coders identified and categorised patients' preference-related utterances and oncologists' utterances, preceding and following such expressions. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Cancer patients ( n = 41) with a median life expectancy <1 year and oncologists ( n = 13) meeting with them in either initial or evaluative follow-up consultations. RESULTS: Most frequent were patients' expressions of treatment preferences (65% of consultations), often the simple wish to have treatment. Expressions of underlying values (48%) and appraisals of treatment aspects (50%) were less common. Most preference-related utterances concerned single statements (59%); in 51% of the consultations, true dialogue was observed. Preference-related utterances were least common in follow-up consultations concerning stable disease or response. Preference-related fragments were patient-initiated (42%), oncologist-facilitated (28%) or oncologist-invited (30%). Oncologist responses likely to trigger more preference-related talk were showing empathy, checking and probe questioning. Likely to reduce space were providing information, personally agreeing and neutral responses. CONCLUSION: Elaboration and joint preference construction is not standard practice in consultations on palliative chemotherapy. Oncologists may benefit from realising this and training skills that support this key step of shared decision making. Also, repeated shared decision making throughout the course of palliative chemotherapy should be stimulated.

Role of GPs in shared decision making with patients about palliative cancer treatment: a qualitative study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: GPs are well placed to enhance shared decision making (SDM) about treatment for patients with advanced cancer. However, to date, little is known about GPs' views about their contribution to SDM. AIM: To explore GPs' perspectives on their role in SDM about palliative cancer treatment and the requirements they report to fulfil this role. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interview study among Dutch GPs. METHOD: GPs were sampled purposefully and conveniently. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed by thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fifteen GPs took part in this study. Most of them reported practices that potentially support SDM: checking the quality of a decision, complementing SDM, and enabling SDM. Even though most of the GPs believed that decision making about systemic cancer treatment is primarily the oncologist's responsibility, they did recognise their added value in the SDM process because of their gatekeeper position, the additional opportunity they offer patients to discuss treatment decisions, and their knowledge and experience as primary healthcare providers at the end of life. Requirements for them to support the SDM process were described as: good collaboration with oncologists; sufficient information about the disease and its treatment; time to engage in conversations about treatment; a trusting relationship with patients; and patient-centred communication. CONCLUSION: GPs may support SDM by checking the quality of a decision and by complementing and enabling the SDM process to reach high-quality decisions. This conceptualisation of the GP's supporting role in SDM may help us to understand how SDM is carried out through interprofessional collaboration and provide tools for how to adopt a role in the interprofessional SDM process.

Effective Information Provision About the Side Effects of Treatment for Malignant Lymphoma: Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial Using Video Vignettes.

BACKGROUND: Informing patients with cancer about the possible implications of prospective treatment is a crucial yet challenging task. Unfortunately, patients' recall of medical information is generally poor and their information needs are not met. Effective information giving entails that oncologists help patients understand and recall the implications of their treatment, meanwhile fostering a trusting physician-patient relationship. Communication strategies that are often suggested to be effective are structuring and tailoring (cognition-oriented) but also are oncologists' expressions of caring or empathy (affect-oriented). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to provide evidence concerning the pathways linking physician communication to (improved) consultation outcomes for patients. More specifically, the aim is to determine the effects of information structuring and information tailoring, combined with physician caring, on information recall, satisfaction with information, and trust in the physician (primary objective) and on symptom distress (secondary objective). METHODS: A randomized controlled trial, systematically testing the effects of information structuring and information tailoring, each combined with caring, in 2 video-vignette experiments (2×2 and 2×2×2 design). Using an online survey platform, participants will be randomly allocated (blinded) to 1 of 12 conditions in which they are asked to view a video vignette (intervention) in which an oncologist discusses a treatment plan for malignant lymphoma with a patient. The independent variables of interest are systematically varied across conditions. The outcome measures are assessed in a survey, using validated instruments. Study participants are (former) patients with cancer and their relatives recruited via online panels and patient organizations. This protocol discusses the trial design, including the video-vignette design, intervention pretesting, and a pilot study. RESULTS: Data collection has now been completed, and preliminary analyses will be available in Spring 2019. A total of 470 participants completed the first part of the survey and were randomized to receive the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the proposed trial will provide evidence concerning the pathways linking physician information, giving skills to (improved) consultation outcomes for patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR6153; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6022 (Archived by Webcite at http://www.webcitation.org/76xVV9xC8). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/12453.

Development and Usability of ADappt: Web-Based Tool to Support Clinicians, Patients, and Caregivers in the Diagnosis of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer Disease.

BACKGROUND: As a result of advances in diagnostic testing in the field of Alzheimer disease (AD), patients are diagnosed in earlier stages of the disease, for example, in the stage of mild cognitive impairment (MCI). This poses novel challenges for a clinician during the diagnostic workup with regard to diagnostic testing itself, namely, which tests are to be performed, but also on how to engage patients in this decision and how to communicate test results. As a result, tools to support decision making and improve risk communication could be valuable for clinicians and patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to present the design, development, and testing of a Web-based tool for clinicians in a memory clinic setting and to ascertain whether this tool can (1) facilitate the interpretation of biomarker results in individual patients with MCI regarding their risk of progression to dementia, (2) support clinicians in communicating biomarker test results and risks to MCI patients and their caregivers, and (3) support clinicians in a process of shared decision making regarding the diagnostic workup of AD. METHODS: A multiphase mixed-methods approach was used. Phase 1 consisted of a qualitative needs assessment among professionals, patients, and caregivers; phase 2, consisted of an iterative process of development and the design of the tool (ADappt); and phase 3 consisted of a quantitative and qualitative assessment of usability and acceptability of ADappt. Across these phases, co-creation was realized via a user-centered qualitative approach with clinicians, patients, and caregivers. RESULTS: In phase 1, clinicians indicated the need for risk calculation tools and visual aids to communicate test results to patients. Patients and caregivers expressed their needs for more specific information on their risk for developing AD and related consequences. In phase 2, we developed the content and graphical design of ADappt encompassing 3 modules: a risk calculation tool, a risk communication tool including a summary sheet for patients and caregivers, and a conversation starter to support shared decision making regarding the diagnostic workup. In phase 3, ADappt was considered to be clear and user-friendly. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians in a memory clinic setting can use ADappt, a Web-based tool, developed using multiphase design and co-creation, for support that includes an individually tailored interpretation of biomarker test results, communication of test results and risks to patients and their caregivers, and shared decision making on diagnostic testing.