Adjuvant chemotherapy non-adherence, patient-centered communication, and patient-level factors in elderly breast and colon cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: We examined patient-level factors (patient characteristics, disease and treatment factors, and patient experience), patient-centered communication (PCCM), and non-adherence to adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) guidelines among breast and colon cancer patients to inform AC adherence promotion and improve clinical outcomes. METHODS: Descriptive statistics for patient-level factors, PCCM, and AC non-adherence (primary non-adherence, non-persistence at 3 and 6 months) were obtained. Multiple logistic regression models were used to estimate AC non-adherence after accounting for the identified patient-level factors. RESULTS: The majority of the sample (n = 577) were White (87%), breast cancer patients (87%), and reported PCCM (provider communication score ≥ 90%, 73%, provider communication score = 100%, 58%). All three levels of AC nonadherence were significantly higher in breast cancer patients (69%, 81%, and 89% for primary non-adherence, and non-persistence at 3 and 6 months, respectively) than colon cancer patients (43%, 46%, and 62%, respectively). Male sex, survey assistance, and low/average ratings of a personal doctor, specialist, and healthcare were associated with lower PCCM. Older age, breast cancer diagnosis, and diagnosis group following 2007-2009 increased the likelihood of all three levels of AC non-adherence. Comorbidities and PCCM-90 were exclusively associated with non-persistence at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant chemotherapy non-adherence varied by cancer diagnosis and treatment factors. The relationship between PCCM and AC non-adherence differed by level of PCCM, time period, and the presence of comorbidities. AC guideline adherence, communication, and value-concordant treatment should be assessed and compared simultaneously to improve our understanding of their interrelationships.

Perceived discrimination and physical activity mediate the associations between receiving a survivorship care plan and cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plan helps improve the continuity of care and manage ongoing pain that affects up to 46% of cancer survivors by promoting health behaviors, including physical activity. However, perceived discrimination may decrease the likelihood of cancer survivors participating in physical activities and negatively influence their pain status. Thus, this study aimed to examine the mediating role of physical activity and perceived discrimination in the relationship between receiving a survivorship care plan and cancer pain. METHODS: This cross-sectional, correlational study utilized data from the 2012-2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Analyses accounted for the complex survey design. Logistic regression was utilized to analyze the association among survivorship care plans, discrimination, physical activity, and pain. Generalized structural equation modeling was conducted to test a hypothesized model in which survivorship care plans and discrimination affect physical activity, and subsequently influence pain status. RESULTS: Forty-two and 81% of survivors reported receiving treatment summaries and follow-up care plans, respectively, and 8% experienced cancer pain. After controlling for covariates, the highest discrimination quintile was three times more likely to report cancer pain than the lowest quintile. While receiving follow-up care plans was positively related to cancer pain, respondents in the third- to fifth- quintiles were less likely to report cancer pain when receiving follow-up care plans than the first quintile respondents. Physical activity mediated the association between discrimination and cancer pain. CONCLUSIONS: Reverse relationships between receiving follow-up care plans and cancer pain existed; however, discrimination and physical activity mediated these relationships.

Understanding racial-ethnic differences in patient-centered care (PCC) in oncology through a critical race theory lens: A qualitative comparison of PCC among Black, Hispanic, and White cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-centered care (PCC) experiences can vary by race and ethnicity and likely contribute to cancer care disparities. We compared PCC concepts between Non-Hispanic White (White), Hispanic, and Non-Hispanic Black (Black) cancer patients utilizing Critical Race Theory (CRT) to understand the relationships between racial-ethnic identity and PCC. METHODS: A thematic analysis and in-depth CRT-informed analysis of individual interviews exploring patient values, unmet needs, preferences, and priorities were performed. RESULTS: Participants were aged> 25 yrs old, 53% male, and included 5 Hispanic, 4 Black and 6 White cancer patients. Unmet needs for time to make decisions, and provider interaction between visits and the value for finding meaning in the illness emerged among Blacks and Whites. The unmet need for a long-term treatment plan emerged among Blacks, and the preference of research participation among Whites. A value for optimism was observed among Hispanics and Whites. Racial-ethnic variations in patient descriptions and experiences of their values, unmet needs, preferences, and priorities were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Underrepresented groups face subtle but significant challenges in feeling cared for and understood, voicing concerns, and obtaining quality care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Increased mutual understanding and provider knowledge of unique PCC experiences among underrepresented cancer patients are needed.

The Causal Relationship Between Portal Usage and Self-Efficacious Health Information-Seeking Behaviors: Secondary Analysis of the Health Information National Trends Survey Data.

BACKGROUND: Patient portals have drawn much attention, as they are considered an important tool for health providers in facilitating patient engagement. However, little is known about whether the intensive use of patient portals contributes to improved management of patients' health in terms of their confidence in acquiring health information and exercising self-care. There is a lack of randomized trials with these outcomes measured both pre- and postadoption of patient portals. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the causal relationship between the usage of patient portals and patients' self-efficacy toward obtaining health information and performing self-care. METHODS: This study was a secondary data analysis that used data from a US national survey, the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey 5 Cycle 1. Patient portal usage frequency was used to define the treatment. Survey items measuring self-efficacy on a Likert-type scale were selected as the main outcomes, including patients' confidence in obtaining health information and performing self-care. To establish causality using survey data, we adopted the instrumental variables method. To determine the direction of the causal relationship in the presence of high-dimensional confounders, we further proposed a novel testing framework that employs conditional independence tests in a directed acyclic graph. The average causal effect was measured using the two-stage least squares regression method. RESULTS: We showed that frequently using patient portals improves patients' confidence in obtaining health information. The estimand of the weighted average causal effect was 0.14 (95% CI 0.06-0.23; P<.001). This means that when increasing the portal usage intensity, for instance, from 1-2 times to 3-5 times per year, the expected average increase in confidence level measured on a Likert-type scale would be 0.14. However, we could not conclusively determine the causal effect between patient portal usage and patients' confidence in exercising self-care. CONCLUSIONS: The results support the use of patient portals and encourage better support and education to patients. The proposed statistical method can be used to exploit the potential of national survey data for causal inference studies.

A Call to Action: Ethics Committee Roundtable Recommendations for Addressing Burnout and Moral Distress in Oncology.

Oncologist well-being is critical to initiating and maintaining the physician-patient relationship, yet many oncologists suffer from symptoms of burnout. Burnout has been linked to poor physical and mental health, as well as increased medical errors, patient dissatisfaction, and workforce attrition. In this Call to Action article, we discuss causes of and interventions for burnout and moral distress in oncology, highlight existing interventions, and provide recommendations for addressing burnout and improving well-being at the individual and organizational levels to deliver ethical, quality cancer care.

Patient access to clinical notes in oncology: A mixed method analysis of oncologists' attitudes and linguistic characteristics towards notes.

BACKGROUND: Providers have expressed concern about patient access to clinical notes. There is the possibility that providers may linguistically censor notes knowing that patients have access. PURPOSE: Qualitative interviews and a pre- and post- linguistic analysis of the implementation of OpenNotes was performed to determine whether oncologists changed the content and style of their notes. METHODS: Mixed methods were utilized, including 13 semi-structured interviews with oncologists and random effects modeling of over 500 clinical notes. The Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count program was used to evaluate notes for emotions, thinking styles, and social concerns. RESULTS: No significant differences from pre- and post-implementation of OpenNotes was found. Thematic analysis revealed that oncologists were concerned that changing their notes would negatively impact multidisciplinary communication. However, oncologists acknowledged that notes could be more patient-friendly and may stimulate patient-provider communication. CONCLUSIONS: Although oncologists were aware that patients could have access, they felt strongly about not changing the content of notes. A comparison between pre- and post-implementation confirmed this view and found that notes did not change. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Patient access to oncologist's notes may serve as an opportunity to reinforce important aspects of the consultation.

OpenNotes in oncology: oncologists' perceptions and a baseline of the content and style of their clinician notes.

Patients' ability to access their provider's clinical notes (OpenNotes) has been well received and has led to greater transparency in health systems. However, the majority of this research has occurred in primary care, and little is known about how patients' access to notes is used in oncology. This study aims to understand oncologists' perceptions of OpenNotes, while also establishing a baseline of the linguistic characteristics and patterns used in notes. Data from 13 in-depth, semistructured interviews with oncologists were thematically analyzed. In addition, the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) program evaluated over 200 clinician notes, measuring variables encompassing emotions, thinking styles, social concerns, and parts of speech. Analysis from LIWC revealed that notes contained negative emotional tone, low authenticity, high clout, and high analytical writing. Oncologists' use of stigmatized and sensitive words, such as "obese" and "distress," was mainly absent. Themes from interviews revealed that oncologists were uncertain about patients' access to their notes and may edit their notes to avoid problematic terminology. Despite their reluctance to embrace OpenNotes, they envisioned opportunities for an improved patient-provider relationship due to patients initiating interactions from viewing notes. Oncologists believe notes are not intended for patients and altering their content may compromise the integrity of the note. This study established a baseline for further study to compare notes pre-implementation to post-implementation. Further analysis will clarify whether oncologists are altering the style and content of their notes and determine the presence of patient-centered language.

Identifying How Patient Portals Impact Communication in Oncology.

Patient portals are becoming widespread throughout health-care systems. Initial research has demonstrated that they positively impact patient-provider communication and patients' health knowledge, but little is known about the impact of patient portals in the cancer setting, where highly complex and uncertain medical data are available for patients to view. To better understand communicative behaviors and perceptions of the patient portal and how it is utilized in oncology, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 48 participants: 35 patients and 13 oncologists. Thematic analysis identified that portals help to enhance participation during in-person consultations, increase patients' self-advocacy, and build rapport with providers. However, patients' comfort level with reviewing information via the portal depended upon the severity of the test. Oncologists worried about patient anxiety and widening health disparities, but acknowledged that the portal can motivate them to expedite communication about laboratory and scan results. As patient portals become more widely used in all medical settings, oncologists should become more engaged with how patients are viewing their medical information and consider the portal within the framework of patient-centered care by valuing patients' communication preferences.

Communication skills training for healthcare professionals in oncology over the past decade: a systematic review of reviews.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Effective communication in cancer care requires complex communication skills of healthcare professionals (HCPs), which can be advanced by communication skills training (CST). The number of empirical studies on CST has grown steadily over the last decade. However, controversies on CST abound. The aim of this review of reviews is to summarize evidence for the effectiveness of CST in oncology as well as for effective CST features (intensity, format and content) and to synthesize the current opinion on CST. RECENT FINDINGS: The evidence synthesized from multiple reviews supported the effect of CST on HCPs' communication skills. Yet, the certainty of evidence was limited as studies were diverse and effects heterogeneous. Furthermore, limited evidence was found for effective CST intensity, format and content. Authors of the reviews advocated further high-quality research with robust outcome measurement to establish the most essential features of CST and recommended implementation of CST in the standard training of HCPs with continuous supervision. SUMMARY: CST can probably improve some aspects of HCPs' communication skills. Despite the uncertain evidence, implementation of CST into clinical practice is widely advocated and specific recommendations regarding intensity and format are provided. Evidence to justify and substantiate implementation efforts is needed.

Implications of Patient Portal Transparency in Oncology: Qualitative Interview Study on the Experiences of Patients, Oncologists, and Medical Informaticists.

BACKGROUND: Providing patients with unrestricted access to their electronic medical records through patient portals has impacted patient-provider communication and patients' personal health knowledge. However, little is known about how patient portals are used in oncology. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to understand attitudes of the portal's adoption for oncology and to identify the advantages and disadvantages of using the portal to communicate and view medical information. METHODS: In-depth semistructured interviews were conducted with 60 participants: 35 patients, 13 oncologists, and 12 medical informaticists. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed to identify critical incidents and general attitudes encountered by participants. RESULTS: Two primary themes were discovered: (1) implementation practices influence attitudes, in which the decision-making and execution process of introducing portals throughout the hospital did not include the input of oncologists. Lack of oncologists' involvement led to a lack of knowledge about portal functionality, such as not knowing the time period when test results would be disclosed to patients; (2) perceptions of portals as communication tools varies by user type, meaning that each participant group (patients, oncologists, and medical informaticists) had varied opinions about how the portal should be used to transmit and receive information. Oncologists and medical informaticists had difficulty understanding one another's culture and communication processes in their fields, while patients had preferences for how they would like to receive communication, but it largely depended upon the type of test being disclosed. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients (54%, 19/35) who participated in this study viewed lab results or scan reports via the portal before being contacted by a clinician. Most were relatively comfortable with this manner of disclosure but still preferred face-to-face or telephone communication. Findings from this study indicate that portal education is needed for both patients and oncologists, especially when portals are implemented across entire health systems since highly specialized areas of medicine may have unique needs and uses. Patient portals in oncology can potentially alter the way diagnoses are delivered and how patients and oncologists communicate. Therefore, communication about the portal should be established during initial consultations so patients can decide whether they want to be informed in such a manner.

The involvement of early stage breast cancer patients during oncology consultations in Italy: a multi-centred, randomized controlled trial of a question prompt sheet versus question listing.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate, prior to an oncology consultation, the use of a pre-prepared list of evidence based questions, Question Prompt Sheet (QPS), compared with a Question List (QL), a patient self-generated list of questions. DESIGN: Multi-centred, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Secondary-care patients attending three outpatient oncology clinics in Northern Italy. PARTICIPANTS: 308 women completed the study. Inclusion criteria were an age between 18 and 75 years, a recent diagnosis of early stage, non-metastatic breast cancer, adequate Italian language skills, no previous oncology visits and no evidence of cognitive impairment. INTERVENTION: Patients received the QPS or the QL prior to the consultation, completed it without suggestion or coaching session and delivered back before the visit.The consultations were audio-recorded and analysed for the number and content of questions. Multilevel linear models were used to compare the two groups. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the comparison of questions asked between QPS and QL group. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction about questions asked, satisfaction with decision, and level of anxiety. RESULTS: Patients in the QPS and QL group asked 13 and 16 questions respectively. The difference was not significant (b=1.7, CI -0.3 to 3.6, p=0.10). A mean of 22 questions was selected in the QPS, while a mean of 2 questions was written in the QL. Patients in the QPS group were significantly less satisfied (t=3.60, p<0.01) with questions asked but wanted less additional information (t=2.20, p<0.05). Levels of patient decisional satisfaction were equivalent between groups. Similarly, anxiety levels were equal between groups prior to the consultation and decreased in similar way after the consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Both interventions have similar impact on patients' participation in terms of question asking during the consultation. Future research is needed in order to explore which components of the interventions are really useful and efficacious. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01510964.

Parallel multicentre randomised trial of a clinical trial question prompt list in patients considering participation in phase 3 cancer treatment trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a clinical trial question prompt list in patients considering enrolment in cancer treatment trials. SETTING: Tertiary cancer referral hospitals in three state capital cities in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 88 patients with cancer attending three cancer centres in Australia, who were considering enrolment in phase 3 treatment trials, were invited to enrol in an unblinded randomised trial of provision of a clinical trial question prompt list (QPL) before consenting to enrol in the treatment trial. INTERVENTIONS: We developed and pilot tested a targeted QPL for patients with cancer considering clinical trial participation (the clinical trial QPL). Consenting patients were randomised to receive the clinical trial QPL or not before further discussion with their oncologist and/or trial nurse about the treatment trial. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Questionnaires were completed at baseline and within 3 weeks of deciding on treatment trial participation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: scores on the Quality of Informed Consent questionnaire (QuIC). RESULTS: 88 patients of 130 sought for the study were enrolled (43 males), and 45 received the clinical trial QPL. 49% of trials were chemotherapy interventions for patients with advanced disease, 35% and 16% were surgical adjuvant and radiation adjuvant trials respectively. 70 patients completed all relevant questionnaires. 28 of 43 patients in the control arm compared with 39 of 45 patients receiving the clinical trial QPL completed the QuIC (p=0.0124). There were no significant differences in the QuIC scores between the randomised groups (QuIC part A p=0.08 and QuIC part B p=0.92). There were no differences in patient satisfaction with decisions or in anxiety levels between the randomised groups. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a question prompt list did not significantly change the QuIC scores in this randomised trial. ANZCTR 12606000214538 prospectively registered 31/5/2006. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Results, ACTRN12606000214538.

Primary Care Physicians' Support of Shared Decision Making for Different Cancer Screening Decisions.

BACKGROUND: Despite its widespread advocacy, shared decision making (SDM) is not routinely used for cancer screening. To better understand the implementation barriers, we describe primary care physicians' (PCPs') support for SDM across diverse cancer screening contexts. METHODS: Surveys were mailed to a random sample of USA-based PCPs. Using multivariable logistic regression analyses, we tested for associations of PCPs' support of SDM with the US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) assigned recommendation grade, assessed whether the decision pertained to not screening older patients, and the PCPs' autonomous v. controlled motivation-orientation for using SDM. RESULTS: PCPs (n = 278) were, on average, aged 52 years, 38% female, and 69% white. Of these, 79% endorsed discussing screening benefits as very important to SDM; 64% for discussing risks; and 31% for agreeing with patient's opinion. PCPs were most likely to rate SDM as very important for colorectal cancer screening in adults aged 50-75 years (69%), and least likely for colorectal cancer screening in adults aged >85 years (34%). Regression results indicated the importance of PCPs' having autonomous or self-determined reasons for engaging in SDM (e.g., believing in the benefits of SDM) (OR = 2.29, 95% CI, 1.87 to 2.79). PCPs' support for SDM varied by USPSTF recommendation grade (overall contrast, X2 = 14.7; P = 0.0054), with support greatest for A-Grade recommendations. Support for SDM was lower in contexts where decisions pertained to not screening older patients (OR = 0.45, 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.56). LIMITATIONS: It is unknown whether PCPs' perceptions of the importance of SDM behaviors differs with specific screening decisions or the potential limited ability to generalize findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the need to document SDM benefits and consider the specific contextual challenges, such as the level of uncertainty or whether evidence supports recommending/not recommending screening, when implementing SDM across an array of cancer screening contexts.

Psychosocial therapies for patients with cancer: a current review of interventions using psychoneuroimmunology-based outcome measures.

BACKGROUND: As part of a new standard of quality cancer care, the Institute of Medicine has recommended inclusion of therapies that address psychosocial needs of cancer patients. A range of psychosocial therapies for managing acute and chronic stress have been developed for patients with cancer, based on the scientific framework of psychoneuroimmunology (PNI). The current review aimed to identify studies of new and emerging PNI-based psychosocial therapies in patients with cancer that have used neuroendocrine-immune biomarkers as outcomes. Specifically, this review aimed to evaluate studies based on the cancer populations involved, types of psychosocial therapies, and PNI measures employed. METHOD: Methodology was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The PubMed, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Google Scholar online databases were searched using combinations of keywords obtained from previous reviews of psychosocial interventions. Studies from 2001 to 2012 were included if they ( : ) were published in English, ( : ) used experimental or quasi-experimental designs, ( : ) evaluated psychosocial therapies, ( : ) involved cancer patients, and ( : ) reported results on at least one neuroendocrine or immune outcome measure. The search strategy identified 403 records and 2 stages of screening were used to eliminate irrelevant studies. RESULT: A total of 24 cancer-specific studies of psychosocial therapies that used PNI-based outcome measures were included in this review. Most studies included early-stage breast cancer patients, and 2 major types of therapies emerged, cognitive-behavioral therapies and complementary medical therapies. Durations of interventions ranged widely, from 1.3 hours over a single week to 27 hours over 18 weeks. Considerable diversity in PNI outcomes made statistical comparisons problematic. Studies of cognitive-behavioral therapies were found to have reported the most success in impacting PNI-based measures, which were typically functional measures of the immune system, for example, cytokines. CONCLUSION: Several issues related to research methodology are discussed. Most important, studies examining dose-response associations and resource allocation are needed to guide future research. A standardized panel of psychosocial instruments and biomarkers for PNI-based studies would enhance comparability of findings across studies when evaluating this body of research and assist with integrating psychosocial therapies into the standard of cancer care.

Perceptions of participation in a phase I, II, or III clinical trial among African American patients with cancer: what do refusers say?

BACKGROUND: Less than 5% of all adult patients with cancer enter clinical trials. These rates are lower in racial/ethnic minority populations, negatively affecting the generalizability and validity of trial results. Many studies have identified barriers to minority enrolment, yet few have gathered in-depth insights into minority patients' reasons for trial refusal. We aimed to (1) explore trial refusal reasons in a sample of African American (AA) patients with cancer who declined trial participation and (2) gather patients' perceptions of the potential benefit of an array of decision support tools. METHODS: Participants were 22 consecutively recruited AA patients with cancer who had declined participation in a therapeutic clinical trial. Within 3 months of the trial refusal decision, participants completed an audio-recorded semistructured interview that asked about demographic and disease information, psychosocial factors, and patients' experience with clinical trials. Two months later, participants completed a questionnaire that asked about their trial decision. RESULTS: Few patients received positive recommendations about joining a trial. Patients gave multiple refusal reasons. Only two participants refused to join a clinical trial as a result of issues of mistrust. Most participants refused as a result of fears of additional burdens and adverse effects. Many patients and family members misunderstood trial information. Family members mostly recommended against trial participation. Most patients felt that question prompt lists or decision aids would assist information seeking and decision making. CONCLUSION: Low rates of physician recommendations for clinical trial participation of AA patients with cancer warrant further investigation. Interventions to reduce misunderstandings and aid decision making, both within and external to the clinical interaction, need to target both patients and family members.

Employee to employer communication skills: balancing cancer treatment and employment.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients face difficulties in accessing legally mandated benefits and accommodations when they return to the workplace. Poor employer-employee communication inflates these difficulties. Although proven methods to facilitate physician-patient communication exist, these have not been applied to the workplace. Thus, we aimed to assess the feasibility and utility of applying these methods to educate patients about their workplace rights and provide them with communication skills training to aid their conversations with their employers. METHODS: A DVD was produced to educate patients and facilitate workplace communication. Participants consisted of 28 solid tumor cancer patients (14 women and 14 men) who completed primary cancer treatment in the past 12 months and were employed at the time of diagnosis. Participants watched a communication skills training DVD and completed a telephone interview. The interview elicited information about workplace experiences and evaluation of the DVD training program. RESULTS: The physician-patient communication skills training model utilized was successfully translated to the employer-employee setting. All but one participant found the DVD useful and easy to understand and indicated a high degree of confidence in using the communication skills to help them ask for workplace accommodations. All participants agreed that it would help newly diagnosed patients in discussions with their employers. CONCLUSION: Our data provides promising preliminary evidence that patient communication skills training can be applied to the workplace setting and is a welcomed aid to newly diagnosed cancer patients in their discussions with employers regarding the impact of treatment on their work performance and needs for accommodations.

Testing the utility of a cancer clinical trial specific Question Prompt List (QPL-CT) during oncology consultations.

OBJECTIVE: A Question Prompt List (QPL) is a proven, simple intervention to aid patients to be active participants in consultations with their physicians by asking questions. We aimed to further develop and test the efficacy of a targeted QPL for clinical trials (QPL-CT). METHODS: Breast, Lung and Genitourinary cancer patients who were facing a discussion about a therapeutic clinical trial completed short pre- and post-consultation questionnaires and used the QPL-CT in their discussions with their oncologists. RESULTS: 30 participants were recruited from 6 oncologists. All QPL-CT questions were selected by at least one-third of participants. Participants mostly wanted and asked questions about personal trial benefit. Oncologists provided information about personal benefit to varying degrees, thus patients did not ask some questions. Patients were still left with some unasked and unanswered questions. CONCLUSION: The QPL-CT has potential as a simple, inexpensive intervention to aid such communication. Further investigation is needed to demonstrate the efficacy of the QPL-CT in improving cancer patient outcomes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These preliminary finding suggest that important areas of clinical trials are overlooked in clinical consultations. The QPL-CT may be an effective method to encourage oncologists to endorse patient question asking about clinical trials and prompt patient questions.

Developing and implementing an advanced communication training program in oncology at a comprehensive cancer center.

Cancer patients report significant levels of unmet needs in the realm of communication. Communication skills training programs have been shown to improve clinical communication. However, advanced communication skills training programs in oncology have lacked institutional integration, and thus have not attended to institutional norms and cultures that may counteract explicit communication skills training. We developed and implemented an advanced communication skills training program made up of nine teaching modules for faculty, fellows, and residents. Training included didactic and experiential small group work. Self-efficacy and behavior change were assessed for individual participants. Since 2006, 515 clinicians have participated in this training program. Participants have shown significant gains in self-efficacy regarding communicating with patients in various contexts. Our initial work in this area demonstrates the implementation of such a program at a major cancer center to be feasible, to be acceptable, and to have a significant impact on participants' self-efficacy.