[Paediatricians report an increased demand for diagnostic tests for reassurance]. / Kinderartsen zien meer vraag naar diagnostiek ter geruststelling.

OBJECTIVE: Test decisions depend on the context in which health care is delivered. We interviewed paediatricians about perceived societal developments and their influence on diagnostic testing. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. METHODS: Semi-structured in-depth interviews with 20 practicing Dutch paediatricians. RESULTS: Paediatricians associated societal developments, such as decreased risk acceptance, with perceived pressure from parents to perform tests. They were motivated to restrict unnecessary tests to avoid harming the child. CONCLUSION: Besides motivation and effort of health care providers, appropriate testing requires system-level actions, such as counteracting a culture of blame and considering societal interests in guideline recommendations.

Disentangling trust of patients with rare cancer in their healthcare professionals and the healthcare system: a qualitative interview study.

PURPOSE: Patients with a rare cancer face challenges, e.g., delayed diagnosis, that may affect trust in the healthcare system and the healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved. This study aimed to explore trust of patients with a rare cancer in their HCPs and the healthcare system. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 purposively sampled patients with a rare cancer. The interview guide included topics related to trust, including level, development, barriers and facilitators, importance, and trust dimensions. Thematic analysis was conducted with use of Atlas.ti. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 50 years, 60% were female, and 70% were highly educated. Three themes were constructed: (1) "Confirmed expertise is a prerequisite of trust." Patients need confirmation of their HCPs' expertise, as it could not be assumed due to the rarity of their cancer; (2) "Trust depends on the adequacy of information and how it is provided." Limited information about rare cancer reduced patients' trust in health care, whereas interpersonal trust was mainly affected by how HCPs provided information; and (3) "Trust is built on properly coordinated and supportive care." Proper organization and cooperation within and between hospitals, and integration of supportive care, enhanced trust. CONCLUSION: Patients with a rare cancer experience challenges that influence trust in HCPs and the healthcare system. Further research should examine trust among subgroups of patients with a rare cancer, to enable development of tailored interventions. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: HCPs may improve trust by focusing on expertise, effective information provision, proper coordination of care, and provision of adequate supportive care.

Exploring uncertainties regarding unsolicited findings in genetic testing.

OBJECTIVES: Non-normative uncertainty (uncertainty about empirical facts) and normative uncertainty (uncertainty about moral values or beliefs) regarding unsolicited findings (UFs) might play an important role in clinical genetics. Identifying normative uncertainty is of special interest since it might guide towards novel directions for counseling practice. This study aims to gain insight into the role of non-normative and normative uncertainty regarding UFs, as expressed by counselees and counselors. METHODS: We performed a secondary qualitative analysis of interviews with counselees (n = 20) and counselors (n = 20) who had been confronted with UFs. Following a deductive approach, we used Han et al.'s existing theoretical framework of uncertainty, in which we additionally incorporated normative uncertainty. RESULTS: Major issues of non-normative uncertainty were practical and personal for counselees, whilst counselors' uncertainty pertained mainly to scientific issues. Normative uncertainty was a major theme throughout the interviews. We encountered the moral conflicts of autonomy vs. beneficence and non-maleficence and of autonomy vs. truthfulness. CONCLUSION: Non-normative uncertainty regarding UFs highlights the need to gain more insight in their penetrance and clinical utility. This study suggests moral conflicts are a major source of feelings of uncertainty in clinical genetics. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Exploring counselees' non-normative uncertainties and normative conflicts seems a prerequisite to optimize genetic counseling.

Validation of the Japanese version of the full and short form Trust in Oncologist Scale.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to validate the Japanese versions of the Trust in Oncologist Scale (TiOS-J) and the TiOS-Short Form (TiOS-SF-J). METHODS: A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted among cancer patients in Japan. The forward-backward translation method was used to develop the TiOS-J. The web-based survey was mailed to 633 people, of whom 309 responded. After 2 weeks, 103 among the 156 first-time respondents completed the second survey to verify the reliability of the retest method. The validity was evaluated by exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), Spearman's correlation coefficients between the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire-Japanese, willingness to recommend the oncologist, trust in health care, and number of oncological consultations. To evaluate reliability, Cronbach's α and test-retest correlation were calculated. RESULTS: The theoretically driven four-factor model and the EFA-driven one-factor model of the full-form TiOS-J (18 items) did not result in an acceptable fit; however, CFA supported the one-dimensionality of the 5 items from the TiOS-SF-J (χ2 (5) = 12.36, p = 0.03, goodness-of-fit index = 0.984, adjusted goodness-of-fit index = 0.952, comparative fit index = 0.991, and root mean square error of approximation = 0.069). With regard to the reliability of TiOS-J and TiOS-SF-J, the Cronbach's alpha values were 0.94 and 0.89, respectively; the test-retest values were 0.82 and 0.78. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: This study indicated that the TiOS-J and TiOS-SF-J are valid and reliable instruments for measuring patients' trust in their oncologists and can be used to assess trust in oncologists for both clinical and research purposes.

Nasal oxytocin administration does not influence eye gaze or perceived relationship of male volunteers with physicians in a simulated online consultation: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

The patient-physician relationship is a critical determinant of patient health outcomes. Verbal and non-verbal communication, such as eye gaze, are vital aspects of this bond. Neurobiological studies indicate that oxytocin may serve as a link between increased eye gaze and social bonding. Therefore, oxytocin signaling could serve as a key factor influencing eye gaze as well as the patient-physician relationship. We aimed to test the effects of oxytocin on gaze to the eyes of the physician and the patient-physician relationship by conducting a randomized placebo-controlled crossover trial in healthy volunteers with intranasally administered oxytocin (with a previously effective single dose of 24 IU, EudraCT number 2018-004081-34). The eye gaze of 68 male volunteers was studied using eye tracking during a simulated video call consultation with a physician, who provided information about vaccination against the human papillomavirus. Relationship outcomes, including trust, satisfaction, and perceived physician communication style, were measured using questionnaires and corrected for possible confounds (social anxiety and attachment orientation). Additional secondary outcome measures for the effect of oxytocin were recall of information and pupil diameter and exploratory outcomes included mood and anxiety measures. Oxytocin did not affect the eye-tracking parameters of volunteers' gaze toward the eyes of the physician. Moreover, oxytocin did not affect the parameters of bonding between volunteers and the physician nor other secondary and exploratory outcomes in this setting. Bayesian hypothesis testing provided evidence for the absence of effects. These results contradict the notion that oxytocin affects eye gaze patterns or bonding.

Diagnostic testing in children: A qualitative study of pediatricians' considerations.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Studies in adult medicine have shown that physicians base testing decisions on the patient's clinical condition but also consider other factors, including local practice or patient expectations. In pediatrics, physicians and parents jointly decide on behalf of a (young) child. This might demand more explicit and more complex deliberations, with sometimes conflicting interests. We explored pediatricians' considerations in diagnostic test ordering and the factors that influence their deliberation. METHOD: We performed in-depth, semistructured interviews with a purposively selected heterogeneous sample of 20 Dutch pediatricians. We analyzed transcribed interviews inductively using a constant comparative approach, and clustered data across interviews to derive common themes. RESULTS: Pediatricians perceived test-related burden in children higher compared with adults, and reported that avoiding an unjustified burden causes them to be more restrictive and deliberate in test ordering. They felt conflicted when parents desired testing or when guidelines recommended diagnostic tests pediatricians perceived as unnecessary. When parents demanded testing, they would explore parental concern, educate parents about harms and alternative explanations of symptoms, and advocate watchful waiting. Yet they reported sometimes performing tests to appease parents or to comply with guidelines, because of feared personal consequences in the case of adverse outcomes. CONCLUSION: We obtained an overview of the considerations that are weighed in pediatric test decisions. The comparatively strong focus on prevention of harm motivates pediatricians to critically appraise the added value of testing and drivers of low-value testing. Pediatricians' relatively restrictive approach to testing could provide an example for other disciplines. Improved guidelines and physician and patient education could help to withstand the perceived pressure to test.

Uncertainty in complex healthcare settings - The need for a comprehensive approach.

Uncertainty is increasingly recognized as a crucial phenomenon throughout medical practice. Research on uncertainty so far has been scattered across disciplines, leading to a lack of consensus about what uncertainty represents and minimal integration of knowledge obtained within isolated disciplines. Currently, a comprehensive view of uncertainty which does justice to normatively or interactionally challenging healthcare settings is lacking. This impedes research teasing apart when and how uncertainty manifests, how all stakeholders experience and value it, and how it affects medical communication and decision-making. In this paper, we argue that we need a more integrated understanding of uncertainty. We illustrate our argument using the context of adolescent transgender care, in which uncertainty occurs in myriad ways. We first sketch how theories of uncertainty have emerged from isolated disciplines, leading to a lack of conceptual integration. Subsequently, we emphasize why it is problematic that no comprehensive approach to uncertainty has yet been developed, using examples from adolescent transgender care. Finally, we advocate an integrated approach of uncertainty to further advance empirical research and to ultimately benefit clinical practice.

Disclosing a history of childhood cancer to romantic partners.

OBJECTIVE: To describe young adult childhood cancer survivors' disclosure of their cancer history (i.e., disclosure behavior, difficulty, and timing), perceived partner responses, and associations with relationship status satisfaction. METHODS: German long-term survivors of childhood cancer (N = 509; response rate: 31.3%, age 21-26, 59.7% female) completed a registry-based nationwide survey (embedded mixed methods design, including closed and open-ended questions) on measures about disclosure history (behavior, difficulty, and timing), partner responses, and relationship status satisfaction. Statistical (χ2 -, t-, or F-tests) and qualitative analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Half of all survivors always disclosed their cancer history to romantic partners. Thereby, three themes for considering (non-)disclosure were identified: Survivors' attitudes, having integrated cancer as part of their identity, and anticipated effects on romantic relationships. About 40% indicated having no difficulties with disclosing their cancer history. The timing of disclosure varied, with most survivors disclosing after a few dates. Facilitators of disclosure were the visibility of their former illness (e.g., scars), having trust in a (potential) partner, getting older/mature, and previous positive experiences with disclosure. Few survivors (13.8%) had ever experienced negative responses from dating partners. Yet, those who had negative experiences, found it more difficult to disclose their cancer history. Survivors were overall rather satisfied with their relationship status, with partnered survivors reporting greater satisfaction than singles (Hedge's g = 1.68); and particularly partnered survivors with past positive responses being most satisfied. CONCLUSIONS: Young adult childhood cancer survivors appear rather open in disclosing their cancer history to (potential) romantic partners, and few experienced negative responses. Psycho-educational programs may emphasize such findings in helping to prevent fear of disclosure or avoidance of dating and disclosure among survivors.

Cancer patients' trust as a motivator to seek a second opinion and its effects on trust.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer patients may seek a second opinion (SO) driven by reduced trust in their own providers. Their trust may be diminished or reinforced through the SO. This study aimed to assess (1) what proportion of patients seek SOs motivated by lacking trust and how trust changes over time; (2) whether patients' trust differs by the outcome of the SO (i.e. similar/different opinion); and (3) how communication during the SO affects trust. DESIGN: A longitudinal mixed methods study including self-report assessments before (T0), immediately following (T1), and two months after the SO (T2). SO consultations (N = 62) were audio recorded, and patient-oncologist communication about the referring oncologist was coded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported motives and their trust in referring oncologists. RESULTS: Reduced trust motivated 21% of patients to seek a SO. Most patients criticised their referring oncologist. Consulting oncologists generally defended their colleagues, but such affirmation was unrelated to patients' subsequent trust. Over time, trust did not change substantially. Yet, it was restored in patients motivated by impaired trust, and remained low for patients receiving a different medical outcome. CONCLUSION: Patients need support to more constructively discuss their treatment relationship. Oncologists need support in providing independent SOs without harming trust relations.

How Physicians Discuss Uncertainty With Parents in Intensive Care Units.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Physicians and parents of critically ill neonates and children receiving intensive care have to make decisions on the child's behalf. Throughout the child's illness and treatment trajectory, adequately discussing uncertainties with parents is pivotal because this enhances the quality of the decision-making process and may positively affect the child's and parents' well-being. We investigated how physicians discuss uncertainty with parents and how this discussion evolves over time during the trajectory. METHODS: We asked physicians working in the NICU and PICU of 3 university medical centers to audio record their conversations with parents of critically ill children from the moment doubts arose whether treatment was in the child's best interests. We qualitatively coded and analyzed the anonymized transcripts, thereby using the software tool MAXQDA 2020. RESULTS: Physicians were found to adapt the way they discussed uncertainty with parents to the specific phase of the child's illness and treatment trajectory. When treatment options were still available, physicians primarily focused on uncertainty related to diagnostic procedures, treatment options, and associated risks and effects. Particularly when the child's death was imminent, physicians had less "scientific" guidance to offer. They eliminated most uncertainty and primarily addressed practical uncertainties regarding the child's dying process to offer parents guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Our insights may increase physicians' awareness and enhance their skills in discussing uncertainties with parents tailored to the phase of the child's illness and treatment trajectory and to parental needs in each specific phase.

Physician gaze shifts in patient-physician interactions: functions, accounts and responses.

OBJECTIVES: Physician gaze towards patients is fundamental for medical consultations. Physicians' use of Electronic Health Records (EHR) affects their gaze towards patients, and may negatively influence this interaction. We aimed to study conversation patterns during gaze shifts of physicians from the patient towards the EHR. METHODS: Outpatient consultations (N = 8) were eye-tracked. Interactions around physician gaze shifts towards the computer were transcribed. RESULTS: We found that physician gaze shifts have different interactional functions, e.g., introducing a topic switch or entering data into the EHR. Furthermore, physicians differ in how they account for their gaze shifts, i.e., both implicitly and explicitly. Third, patients vary in treating the gaze shift as an indication to continue their turn or not. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that physician gaze shifts vary in function, in how physicians account for them, and in how they influence the conversation. Future research should take into account distinctions when relating gaze to patient outcomes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Physicians may be aware of the interactional context of their gaze behaviour. Patients respond differently to various types of gaze shifts. How physicians handle gaze shifts can therefore have different consequences for the interaction.

The Influence of Face Gaze by Physicians on Patient Trust: an Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Physicians' gaze towards their patients may affect patients' trust in them. This is especially relevant considering recent developments, including the increasing use of Electronic Health Records, which affect physicians' gaze behavior. Moreover, socially anxious patients' trust in particular may be affected by the gaze of the physician. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate if physicians' gaze towards the face of their patient influenced patient trust and to assess if this relation was stronger for socially anxious patients. We furthermore explored the relation between physicians' gaze and patients' perception of physician empathy and patients' distress. DESIGN: This was an observational study using eye-tracking glasses and questionnaires. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred patients and 16 residents, who had not met before, participated at an internal medicine out-patient clinic. MEASURES: Physicians wore eye-tracking glasses during medical consultations to assess their gaze towards patients' faces. Questionnaires were used to assess patient outcomes. Multilevel analyses were conducted to assess the relation between physicians' relative face gaze time and trust, while correcting for patient background characteristics, and including social anxiety as a moderator. Analyses were then repeated with perceived empathy and distress as outcomes. RESULTS: More face gaze towards patients was associated with lower trust, after correction for gender, age, education level, presence of caregivers, and social anxiety (ß=-0.17, P=0.048). There was no moderation effect of social anxiety nor a relation between face gaze and perceived empathy or distress. CONCLUSIONS: These results challenge the notion that more physician gaze is by definition beneficial for the physician-patient relationship. For example, the extent of conversation about emotional issues might explain our findings, where more emotional talk could be associated with more intense gazing and feelings of discomfort in the patient. To better understand the relation between physician gaze and patient outcomes, future studies should assess bidirectional face gaze during consultations.

Methodological choices in experimental research on medical communication using vignettes: The impact of gender congruence and vignette modality.

OBJECTIVE: Experimental vignette designs are used to systematically test the effects of medical communication. We tested the impact of two methodological choices -gender congruence and vignette modality- on analogue patient reported outcomes. METHODS: In an online experiment using a vignette portraying an oncological bad news consultation, we manipulated (1) gender congruence between the analogue and the vignette patient, and (2) vignette modality, i.e., text, audio, or video. Cancer-naïve students acting as analogue patients (N = 209, 22 ± 3 years old, 75% F) were assigned one randomly-selected vignette variant and completed questionnaires. Using 3 × 2 (repeated-measures) ANOVAs, we tested main and interaction effects of gender congruence and modality on self-reported engagement, recall, trust, satisfaction and anxiety. RESULTS: We found no main effects of gender congruence or modality on any of the outcomes, nor any interaction effects between modality and congruence. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that researchers may needlessly create gender-congruent vignettes at considerable cost and effort. Also, the currently assumed superiority of videos over other modalities for experimental vignette-based research may be inaccurate. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Although further testing in an offline format and among different populations is warranted, decisions regarding gender congruence and modality for future vignette-based studies should be based primarily on their specific aims.

Advanced Care Planning in Parkinson's Disease: In-depth Interviews With Patients on Experiences and Needs.

Introduction: Advance care planning (ACP) is an iterative process of discussing the needs, wishes, and preferences of patients regarding disease-specific and end-of-life issues. There is ample evidence that ACP improves the quality of life and promotes the autonomy of patients with cancer and motor neuron disease who have a high disease burden and shortened life expectancy. In Parkinson's disease (PD) though, knowledge about the experiences and preferences of patients regarding ACP is scarce, despite the major disease burden associated with PD. Aim: This study aims to explore the experiences, needs, and preferences of PD patients regarding the content and timing of ACP. Methods: In-depth interviews were conducted with a purposively selected sample of patients diagnosed with PD. Using a semi-structured topic list, the participants were asked about their prospects for a future living with PD and with whom they wanted to discuss this. Qualitative analysis was performed in parallel with data collection using a data-driven constant comparative approach. The transcribed interviews were coded and analyzed by two researchers using MAXQDA software. Results: Of all 20 patients (13 males; age 47-82; disease duration 1-27 years), most expressed a wish to talk about ACP with a healthcare provider, enabling them to anticipate the uncertain future. The majority of patients preferred their healthcare provider to initiate the discussion on ACP, preferably at an early stage of the disease. Nearly all patients expressed the wish to receive more information regarding the long-term impact of PD, although, the preferred timing varied between patients. They also perceived that their neurologist was primarily focused on medication and had little time to address their need for a more holistic approach toward living with PD. Conclusion: Our results suggest that PD patients are in need of discussing ACP with their healthcare provider (HCP), even in the early stages of the disease. In addition, PD patients perceive a lack of information on their disease course and miss guidance on available supportive care. We recommend HCPs to inquire the information requirements and preferences of patients regarding ACP regularly, starting soon after diagnosis.

Oncologists' Communication About Uncertain Information in Second Opinion Consultations: A Focused Qualitative Analysis.

Introduction: Uncertainty is omnipresent in cancer care, including the ambiguity of diagnostic tests, efficacy and side effects of treatments, and/or patients' long-term prognosis. During second opinion consultations, uncertainty may be particularly tangible: doubts and uncertainty may drive patients to seek more information and request a second opinion, whereas the second opinion in turn may also affect patients' level of uncertainty. Providers are tasked to clearly discuss all of these uncertainties with patients who may feel overwhelmed by it. The aim of this study was to explore how oncologists communicate about uncertainty during second opinion consultations in medical oncology. Methods: We performed a secondary qualitative analysis of audio-recorded consultations collected in a prospective study among cancer patients (N = 69) who sought a second opinion in medical oncology. We purposively selected 12 audio-recorded second opinion consultations. Any communication about uncertainty by the oncologist was double coded by two researchers and an inductive analytic approach was chosen to allow for novel insights to arise. Results: Seven approaches in which oncologists conveyed or addressed uncertainty were identified: (1) specifying the degree of uncertainty, (2) explaining reasons of uncertainty, (3) providing personalized estimates of uncertainty to patients, (4) downplaying or magnifying uncertainty, (5) reducing or counterbalancing uncertainty, and (6) providing support to facilitate patients in coping with uncertainty. Moreover, oncologists varied in their (7) choice of words/language to convey uncertainty (i.e., "I" vs. "we"; level of explicitness). Discussion: This study identified various approaches of how oncologists communicated uncertain issues during second opinion consultations. These different approaches could affect patients' perception of uncertainty, emotions provoked by it, and possibly even patients' behavior. For example, by minimizing uncertainty, oncologists may (un)consciously steer patients toward specific medical decisions). Future research is needed to examine how these different ways of communicating about uncertainty affect patients. This could also facilitate a discussion about the desirability of certain communication strategies. Eventually, practical and evidence-based guidance needs to be developed for clinicians to optimally inform patients about uncertain issues and support patients in dealing with these.

A scoping review of practice recommendations for clinicians' communication of uncertainty.

BACKGROUND: Health-care providers increasingly have to discuss uncertainty with patients. Awareness of uncertainty can affect patients variably, depending on how it is communicated. To date, no overview existed for health-care professionals on how to discuss uncertainty. OBJECTIVE: To generate an overview of available recommendations on how to communicate uncertainty with patients during clinical encounters. SEARCH STRATEGY: A scoping review was conducted. Four databases were searched following the PRISMA-ScR statement. Independent screening by two researchers was performed of titles and abstracts, and subsequently full texts. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Any (non-)empirical papers were included describing recommendations for any health-care provider on how to orally communicate uncertainty to patients. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on provided recommendations and their characteristics (eg, target group and strength of evidence base) were extracted. Recommendations were narratively synthesized into a comprehensible overview for clinical practice. RESULTS: Forty-seven publications were included. Recommendations were based on empirical findings in 23 publications. After narrative synthesis, 13 recommendations emerged pertaining to three overarching goals: (a) preparing for the discussion of uncertainty, (b) informing patients about uncertainty and (c) helping patients deal with uncertainty. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: A variety of recommendations on how to orally communicate uncertainty are available, but most lack an evidence base. More substantial research is needed to assess the effects of the suggested communicative approaches. Until then, health-care providers may use our overview of communication strategies as a toolbox to optimize communication about uncertainty with patients. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Results were presented to stakeholders (physicians) to check and improve their practical applicability.

Patient-provider communication during second opinion consultations in oncology.

OBJECTIVE: Providing a second opinion (SO) in oncology is complex, and communication during SOs remains poorly understood. This study aimed to systematically observe how patients and oncologists communicate about SO-specific topics (i.e., patient motivation, the referring oncologist, treatment transfer/back-referral), and how such communication affects patient satisfaction. METHODS: A prospective mixed-methods study of cancer patients seeking a SO (N = 69) and consulting oncologists was conducted. Before the SO, patients reported their expected place of future treatment. Following the SO, patients' and oncologists' satisfaction was assessed. All SOs were audio-recorded. Absolute and relative duration of SO-specific talk were calculated and specific events (e.g., questions/utterances) were coded (incl. valence, explicitness). RESULTS: SOs lasted 19-73 min, of which 3.7% was spent discussing motivations. Oncologists rarely explored patients' motivations. Talk about referring oncologists (12.5% of consultation) was mostly critical by patients (M = 43.0%), but positive/confirming by consulting oncologists (M = 73.5%). Although 22.2% of patients expected a treatment transfer, this topic (3.3% of consultation time) was rarely explicitly discussed. Patients who were referred back were significantly less satisfied (d = 0.85). CONCLUSION: Patient-provider communication in oncological SOs appears insufficiently aligned. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Patients and oncologists need support to explicitly and productively communicate about SO-specific topics and to better manage expectations. Recommendations are provided.

A randomized experimental study to test the effects of discussing uncertainty during cancer genetic counseling: different strategies, different outcomes?

Uncertainty is increasingly discussed during genetic counseling due to innovative techniques, e.g., multigene panel testing. Discussions about uncertainty may impact counselees variably, depending on counselors' communication styles. Ideally, the discussion of uncertainty enables counselees to cope with uncertainty and make well-informed decisions about testing. We examined the impact of how counselors convey uncertainty and address counselees' uncertainty, and explored the role of individual characteristics. Therefore, a randomized controlled experiment using videos was conducted. Former counselees (N = 224) viewed one video depicting a genetic consultation about multigene panel testing. The extent of counselors' communication of uncertainty (comprehensive vs. the essence) and their response to counselees' uncertainty expressions (providing information vs. providing space for emotions vs. normalizing and counterbalancing uncertainty) were systematically manipulated. Individual characteristics, e.g., uncertainty tolerance, were assessed, as well as outcome variables (primary outcomes: feelings of uncertainty and information recall). No effects were found on primary outcomes. Participants were most satisfied when the essence was communicated, combined with providing information or providing space responses (p = 0.002). Comprehensive information resulted in less perceived steering toward testing (p = 0.005). Participants with lower uncertainty tolerance or higher trait anxiety were less confident about their understanding when receiving comprehensive information (p = 0.025). Participants seeking information experienced less uncertainty (p = 0.003), and trusted their counselor more (p = 0.028), when the counselor used information providing responses. In sum, the impact of discussing uncertainty primarily depends on individual characteristics. Practical guidelines should address how to tailor the discussion of uncertainty.

Communication skills training for healthcare professionals in providing genetic counseling: A scoping literature review.

OBJECTIVE: Genetic counselors need advanced communication skills, particularly when discussing tests involving massively parallel sequencing. Increasingly, non-genetic healthcare professionals (HCPs) also need to provide genetic counseling. Communication skills training (CST) may equip HCPs with the required communication skills. This scoping review provides an overview of the content, approach, effectiveness and effective features of CSTs aimed at improving genetic and non-genetic HCPs' communication skills in providing genetic counseling. METHODS: Following the PRISMA-ScR statement, four databases were searched for articles. Two researchers independently screened titles and abstracts, and extracted data. When applicable, information on effectiveness and effective features of CST was collated. RESULTS: Twenty-three articles were included. Sixteen CSTs targeted non-genetic HCPs, five targeted genetic HCPs and two targeted both. Most CSTs addressed multiple communication behaviors and consisted of role play. CSTs were found to be effective for improving HCPs (mainly self-reported) attitudes and skills. Limited evidence on specific effective features of CST was found. CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear need for evidence on the effectiveness of CST on improving both HCPs' communication skills in the context of genetic counseling, and patient outcomes, and its specific effective features. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinical practice could benefit from evidence-based CST for genetic and non-genetic HCPs.

Validation of the Italian version of the full and abbreviated Trust in Oncologist Scale.

INTRODUCTION: The Trust in Oncologist Scale (TiOS) is an 18-item questionnaire aimed to assess the cancer patients' trust in their oncologist and has been validated in Dutch and English language. This study aims to validate the Italian version of the TiOS (IT-TiOS) and the TiOS-Short Form (IT-TiOS-SF). METHODS: The IT-TiOS was administered to 194 patients recruited in an Italian oncology department from April to December 2018. Data collected included socio-demographic data, health and clinical information, satisfaction with the most recent oncology visit and trust in the regional healthcare system. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent and the structural validity of both the full and short form were tested. RESULTS: Factor analyses indicated that neither four-factor nor one-factor models of the full scale were acceptable. However, confirmatory factor analysis supported the one-dimensionality of the IT-TiOS-SF, and internal consistency assessed with Cronbach's alpha was 0.88. Mean scores on the IT-TiOS-SF correlated with satisfaction with the oncologist (rs = 0.64) and willingness to recommend the oncologist to others (rs = 0.67), confirming good construct validity. CONCLUSION: The IT-TiOS-SF demonstrates good psychometric properties and can be used to assess trust for both clinical and research purposes.