Effect of a Skills Training for Oncologists and a Patient Communication Aid on Shared Decision Making About Palliative Systemic Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Palliative systematic treatment offers uncertain and often limited benefits, and the burden can be high. Hence, treatment decisions require shared decision making (SDM). This trial examined the independent and combined effect of an oncologist training and a patient communication aid on SDM. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial with four parallel arms (2016-2018), oncologists (n = 31) were randomized to receive SDM communication skills training or not. The training consisted of a reader, two group sessions, a booster session, and a consultation room tool (10 hours). Patients (n = 194) with advanced cancer were randomized to receive a patient communication aid or not. The aid consisted of education on SDM, a question prompt list, and a value clarification exercise. The primary outcome was observed SDM as rated by blinded observers from audio-recorded consultations. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported SDM, patient and oncologist satisfaction, patients' decisional conflict, patient quality of life 3 months after consultation, consultation duration, and the decision made. RESULTS: The oncologist training had a large positive effect on observed SDM (Cohen's d = 1.12) and on patient-reported SDM (d = 0.73). The patient communication aid did not improve SDM. The combination of interventions did not add to the effect of training oncologists only. The interventions affected neither patient nor oncologist satisfaction with the consultation nor patients' decisional conflict, quality of life, consultation duration, or the decision made. CONCLUSION: Training medical oncologists in SDM about palliative systemic treatment improves both observed and patient-reported SDM. A patient communication aid does not. The incorporation of skills training in (continuing) educational programs for medical oncologists is likely to stimulate the widely advocated uptake of shared decision making in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registry NTR 5489. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Treatment for advanced cancer offers uncertain and often small benefits, and the burden can be high. Hence, treatment decisions require shared decision making (SDM). SDM is increasingly advocated for ethical reasons and for its beneficial effect on patient outcomes. Few initiatives to stimulate SDM are evaluated in robust designs. This randomized controlled trial shows that training medical oncologists improves both observed and patient-reported SDM in clinical encounters (n = 194). A preconsultation communication aid for patients did not add to the effect of training oncologists. SDM training effectively changes oncologists' practice and should be implemented in (continuing) educational programs.

Provider caring and structuring treatment information to improve cancer patients' recall: Does it help?

OBJECTIVES: Patient recall of medical information is usually poor. Healthcare providers can employ affect-oriented (i.e., showing care) or cognition-oriented communication styles (i.e., structuring information) to enhance recall, but research evidence is limited especially among clinical and/or older patient populations. This video-vignette study manipulated provider caring and information structuring to examine effects on recall and trust among cancer patients/survivors. METHODS: In an online survey, 148 participants (Mage = 62) were randomized to one of four video conditions in a two (standard communication vs. enhanced caring) by two (standard vs. enhanced structuring) design, and completed measures of active recall, recognition, and trust. RESULTS: Increased caring or structuring did not enhance active recall or recognition, instead both were higher among younger, female, or highly educated participants. The caring condition induced higher perceived trust in the provider within the whole sample, but trust was significantly correlated with decreased recall (r = -.268) among younger participants. CONCLUSIONS: Provider caring can strengthen the patient-provider relationship by enhancing trust. Yet, increased trust may impair recall among younger patients. Structuring treatment information did not enhance recall and recognition, but additional research is needed. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Providers may use additional ways of structuring/organizing information to help enhance recall (e.g., written information).

Health care use and remaining needs for support among women with breast cancer in the first 15 months after diagnosis: the role of the GP.

BACKGROUND: The number of women with breast cancer in general practice is rising. To address their needs and wishes for a referral, GPs might benefit from more insight into women's health care practices and need for additional support. OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of health care use and remaining needs among women with breast cancer in the first 15 months after diagnosis. METHODS: In this multicentre, prospective, observational study women with breast cancer completed a questionnaire at 6 and 15 months post-diagnosis. Medical data were retrieved through chart reviews. The prevalence of types of health care used and remaining needs related to medical, psychosocial, paramedical and supplementary service care (such as home care), was examined with descriptive analyses. RESULTS: Seven hundred forty-six women completed both questionnaires. At both assessments patients reported that they had most frequent contact with medical and paramedical providers, independent of types of treatment received. Three to fifteen percent of the patients expressed a need for more support. Prominent needs included a wish for more frequent contact with a physiotherapist, a clinical geneticist and a psychologist. Patients also wanted more help for chores around the house, particularly in the early post-treatment phase. CONCLUSION: A small but relevant percentage of women with breast cancer report having unmet needs. GPs may need to be particularly watchful of their need for more support from specific providers. Future research into the necessity of structural needs assessment among cancer patients in general practice is warranted.

Tailoring the amount of treatment information to cancer patients' and survivors' preferences: Effects on patient-reported outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Tailoring medical information to cancer patients' needs is recommended, but there is little guidance on how to tailor, and limited research exists about its effects. Tailoring to the amount of preferred information may be easily implementable in clinic and is tested here. METHODS: A video-vignette experiment was used to systematically vary video patients' information preferences (limited/extensive) and amount of provided information (additional/no additional). N = 253 cancer patients/survivors evaluated these video-recorded consultations, serving as analogue patients (APs), and completed outcome measures. RESULTS: Tailoring information to video patients' preferences had no effect on APs' evaluation of the consultation (satisfaction, trust). Yet, there was a main effect of APs' own information preferences: Those preferring extensive information recalled (MΔ = 5.8%) and recognized (MΔ = 3.5%) more information than those preferring limited information. Moreover, information provision mattered among APs who preferred limited information: They recognized even less if provided with extensive information. CONCLUSIONS: Tailoring to the amount of video patient's information preferences did not affect APs' evaluation of the consultation (satisfaction, trust), while APs' personal information preferences determined their recall and recognition of medical information. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Information preferences should be assessed and tailored to in clinical practice. Overwhelming patients/survivors, who prefer limited information, should be prevented.

Risk factors of unmet needs among women with breast cancer in the post-treatment phase.

OBJECTIVE: Unmet health care needs require additional care resources to achieve optimal patient well-being. In this nationwide study we examined associations between a number of risk factors and unmet needs after treatment among women with breast cancer, while taking into account their health care practices. We expected that more care use would be associated with lower levels of unmet needs. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, observational design was employed. Women with primary breast cancer completed questionnaires 6 and 15 months post-diagnosis. Medical data were retrieved from medical records. Direct and indirect associations between sociodemographic and clinical risk factors, distress, care use, and unmet needs were investigated with structural equation modeling. RESULTS: Seven hundred forty-six participants completed both questionnaires (response rate 73.7%). The care services received were not negatively associated with the reported levels of unmet needs after treatment. Comorbidity was associated with higher physical and daily living needs. Higher age was associated with higher health system-related and informational needs. Having had chemotherapy and a mastectomy were associated with higher sexuality needs and breast cancer-specific issues, respectively. A higher level of distress was associated with higher levels of unmet need in all domains. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians may use these results to timely identify which women are at risk of developing specific unmet needs after treatment. Evidence-based, cost-effective (online) interventions that target distress, the most influential risk factor, should be further implemented and disseminated among patients and clinicians.

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.

Does silence speak louder than words? The impact of oncologists' emotion-oriented communication on analogue patients' information recall and emotional stress.

OBJECTIVE: The impact of two types of oncologists' emotion-oriented communication on participants' recall of medical information was investigated, and the potential mediation by a reduction in emotional stress. Additionally, moderation effects by personal characteristics were explored. METHODS: An oncologist's communication in response to a patient's emotional expressions was manipulated during a videotaped, scripted bad-news consultation. Three conditions were created: 1) standard communication, 2) emotion-oriented silence, and 3) emotion-oriented speech. Participants (N = 217) were randomly allocated to one of the three conditions. Measurements included information recall (free recall and recognition), emotional stress (self-reported and physiological), and personal characteristics. RESULTS: Emotion-oriented silence (p = .002) and speech (p = .019) enhanced information recognition compared to standard communication. No differences in free recall were found. Emotional stress did not mediate these relations. Poorer functional health literacy predicted poorer recognition, but this was counteracted by emotion-oriented communication. CONCLUSIONS: By means of acknowledging, exploring, empathic and supportive statements, and attentive silence, the oncologist's communication resulted in better information recognition. How oncologists' communication impacts patients' information recall warrants further investigation, as this could not be explained by reducing emotional stress. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These insights will help educators to validate the relevance of emotion-oriented strategies, and encourage oncologists to adopt them.

Training for Medical Oncologists on Shared Decision-Making About Palliative Chemotherapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Systemic treatment for advanced cancer offers uncertain and sometimes limited benefit, while the burden can be high. This study examines the effect of shared decision-making (SDM) training for medical oncologists on observed SDM in standardized patient assessments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized controlled trial comparing training with standard practice was conducted. Medical oncologists and oncologists-in-training (n = 31) participated in a video-recorded, standardized patient assessment at baseline (T0) and after 4 months (T1, after training). The training was based on a four-stage SDM model and consisted of a reader, two group sessions (3.5 hours each), a booster session (1.5 hours), and a consultation card. The primary outcome was observed SDM as assessed with the Observing Patient Involvement scale (OPTION12) coded by observers blinded for arm. Secondary outcomes were observed SDM per stage, communication skills, and oncologists' satisfaction with communication. RESULTS: The training had a significant and large effect on observed SDM in the simulated consultations (Cohen's f = 0.62) and improved observed SDM behavior in all four SDM stages (f = 0.39-0.72). The training improved oncologists' information provision skills (f = 0.77), skills related to anticipating/responding to emotions (f = 0.42), and their satisfaction with the consultation (f = 0.53). CONCLUSION: Training medical oncologists in SDM about palliative systemic treatment improves their performance in simulated consultations. The next step is to examine the effect of such training on SDM in clinical practice and on patient outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Systemic treatment for advanced cancer offers uncertain and sometimes limited benefit, while the burden can be high. Hence, applying the premises of shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended. SDM is increasingly advocated based on the ethical imperative to provide patient-centered care and the increasing evidence for beneficial patient outcomes. Few studies examined the effectiveness of SDM training in robust designs. This randomized controlled trial demonstrated that SDM training (10 hours) improves oncologists' performance in consultations with standardized patients. The next step is to examine the effect of training on oncologists' performance and patient outcomes in clinical practice.

Promoting shared decision making in advanced cancer: Development and piloting of a patient communication aid.

OBJECTIVE: To learn how to configure a patient communication aid (PCA) to facilitate shared decision-making (SDM) about treatment for advanced cancer. METHODS: The PCA consists of education about SDM, a question prompt list, and values clarification methods. Study 1. A first version was presented to 13 patients, 8 relatives and 14 bereaved relatives in interviews. Study 2. A second version was used by 18 patients in a pilot study. Patients and oncologists were interviewed, patients were surveyed, and consultations were audio-recorded. RESULTS: Respondents reported that the aid facilitated patient control over information, raised choice awareness and promoted elaboration. Risks were identified, most importantly that the aid might upset patients. Also, some respondents reported that the PCA did not, or would not support decision making because they felt sufficiently competent, did not perceive a role for themselves, or did not perceive that the decision required elaboration. CONCLUSIONS: Opinions on the usefulness of the PCA varied. It was challenging to raise awareness about the presence of a choice, and to find a balance between comprehensive information and sensitivity. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A future study should demonstrate whether the PCA can improve SDM, and whether this effect is stronger when oncologists receive training.

How to support cancer genetics counselees in informing at-risk relatives? Lessons from a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: In hereditary and familial cancer, counselees are requested to inform their at-risk relatives. We developed an intervention to support counselees in this task. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted aimed at improving cancer genetic counselees' i) knowledge, ii) motivation to disclose information, and ii) self-efficacy in this regard. Eligible participants were randomized to telephonic counseling (n = 148), or standard care (n = 157) and assessed at baseline, 1 week post-intervention, and 4 months after study enrolment. RESULTS: No between-group differences were found in participants' knowledge, motivation, and self-efficacy. Knowledge concerning which second-degree relatives to inform was lower compared to first-degree relatives. About 60% of the participants was of the opinion that they needed to inform more relatives than stated in their summary letter and only about 50% were correctly aware of which information to disclose. Of note, at baseline, almost 80% of the participants had already correctly informed their at-risk relatives. CONCLUSIONS: Since, unexpectedly, counselees already informed most of their relatives before the intervention was offered, efficacy of the intervention could not convincingly be determined. Counselees' knowledge about whom to inform about what is suboptimal. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Future interventions should target a more homogeneous sample and address counselees' understanding and recall.

Patients' and oncologists' views on how oncologists may best address patients' emotions during consultations: An interview study.

OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study examines patients' and oncologists' views on how to best address emotions during consultations, and explores oncologists' opinions on their own communication and on strategies to improve oncologists' response to patients' emotions. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 cancer patients and 13 oncologists, after watching videotaped consultations illustrating three communication strategies for addressing emotions. RESULTS: Many participants preferred emotion-oriented speech to address patients' emotions; this strategy was assumed to (positively) affect a broad range of outcomes. Nevertheless, some preferred attentive silence or no emotion-oriented talk at all. Oncologists and patients had similar views on factors that may hinder oncologists to address emotions. Generally, oncologists mentioned that their response to emotions could be improved; for this, various (educational) strategies were suggested. CONCLUSION: Patients and oncologists generally agree that patients' emotions can best be addressed by empathic, explorative, acknowledging, and supportive statements. Still, differences in preferences exist, thus oncologists need to attune their communication to the individual patient. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The findings can inform medical communication training and encourage oncologists to improve their communication. The regular videotaping of consultations might be a promising method to provide feedback and reflect, thereby improving oncologists' response to patients' emotions.

Studying medical communication with video vignettes: a randomized study on how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence analogue patients' engagement.

BACKGROUND: Video vignettes are used to test the effects of physicians' communication on patient outcomes. Methodological choices in video-vignette development may have far-stretching consequences for participants' engagement with the video, and thus the ecological validity of this design. To supplement the scant evidence in this field, this study tested how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence participants' engagement with a video vignette showing a bad news consultation. METHODS: Introduction format (A = audiovisual vs. B = written) and camera focus (1 = the physician only, 2 = the physician and the patient at neutral moments alternately, 3 = the physician and the patient at emotional moments alternately) were varied in a randomized 2 × 3 between-subjects design. One hundred eighty-one students were randomly assigned to watch one of the six resulting video-vignette conditions as so-called analogue patients, i.e., they were instructed to imagine themselves being in the video patient's situation. Four dimensions of self-reported engagement were assessed retrospectively. Emotional engagement was additionally measured by recording participants' electrodermal and cardiovascular activity continuously while watching. Analyses of variance were used to test the effects of introduction format, camera focus and their interaction. RESULTS: The audiovisual introduction induced a stronger blood pressure response during watching the introduction (p = 0.048, [Formula: see text]= 0.05) and the consultation part of the vignette (p = 0.051, [Formula: see text]= 0.05), when compared to the written introduction. With respect to camera focus, results revealed that the variant focusing on the patient at emotional moments evoked a higher level of electrodermal activity (p = 0.003, [Formula: see text]= 0.06), when compared to the other two variants. Furthermore, an interaction effect was shown on self-reported emotional engagement (p = 0.045, [Formula: see text]= 0.04): the physician-only variant resulted in lower emotional engagement if the vignette was preceded by the audiovisual introduction. No effects were shown on the other dimensions of self-reported engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings imply that using an audiovisual introduction combined with alternating camera focus depicting patient's emotions results in the highest levels of emotional engagement in analogue patients. This evidence can inform methodological decisions during the development of video vignettes, and thereby enhance the ecological validity of future video-vignettes studies.

Older Patients' Recall of Online Cancer Information: Do Ability and Motivation Matter More than Chronological Age?

This study proposes and tests a model to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the contribution of chronological age versus age-related ability and motivation factors in explaining recall of online cancer information among older patients (n = 197). Results revealed that recall is not a matter of chronological age per se, but rather a matter of ability and motivation. Age-related ability and motivation factors explained 37.9% of the variance in recall. Health literacy, involvement with the webpage, and satisfaction with the emotional support were positively associated with recall. Furthermore, recall was negatively related to frailty, anger, future time perspective, and perceived cognitive load. The findings pose relevant opportunities for tailoring interventions to improve online information provision for older cancer patients.

Trust and Perceptions of Physicians' Nonverbal Behavior Among Women with Immigrant Backgrounds.

Previous findings suggest immigrant patients have lower trust in their physicians, and perceive nonverbal communication differently compared to non-immigrant patients. We tested discrepancies in trust and the impact of non-verbal behavior between immigrants and non-immigrants in The Netherlands. Nonverbal communication of an oncologist was systematically varied in an experimental video vignettes design. Breast cancer patients (n = 34) and healthy women (n = 34) viewed one of eight video versions and evaluated trust and perceived friendliness of the oncologist. In a matched control design, women with immigrant and non-immigrant backgrounds were paired. Immigrant women reported stronger trust. Nonverbal communication by the oncologist did not influence trust differently for immigrants compared to for non-immigrants. However, smiling strongly enhanced perceived friendliness for non-immigrants, but not for immigrants. Immigrant patients' strong trust levels may be formed a priori, instead of based on physicians' communication. Physicians may need to make extra efforts to optimize their communication.

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.

The value of physicians' affect-oriented communication for patients' recall of information.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to discuss experimental research investigating the effect of physicians' affect-oriented communication on patients' recall of information provided during medical consultations, with a special focus on the mediating role of emotional stress in that relation. METHODS & RESULTS: A search of experimental research literature was conducted, resulting in six research articles experimentally investigating the relations of interest, all using a video-vignettes design. A summary of results is provided and discussed. CONCLUSIONS: The research reviewed in this paper provides evidence for the causal and mostly positive influence of several forms of affect-oriented communication on patients' recall of medical information. Results indicate that reducing emotional stress may not be the underlying mechanism through which physicians' communication influences patients' recall. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The obtained insights will help educators to teach evidence-based medical communication skills and to scientifically validate the importance of these skills for patients' recall of information. Advancing physicians' communication skills with evidence-based training will contribute to the professionalism that is the hallmark of good quality of care.

Are psychophysiological arousal and self-reported emotional stress during an oncological consultation related to memory of medical information? An experimental study.

Patients forget 20-80% of information provided during medical consultations. The emotional stress often experienced by patients during consultations could be one of the mechanisms that lead to limited recall. The current experimental study therefore investigated the associations between (analog) patients' psychophysiological arousal, self-reported emotional stress and their (long term) memory of information provided by the physician. One hundred and eighty one cancer-naïve individuals acted as so-called analog patients (APs), i.e. they were instructed to watch a scripted video-recoding of an oncological bad news consultation while imagining themselves being in the patient's situation. Electrodermal and cardiovascular activity (e.g. skin conductance level and heart rate) were recorded during watching. Self-reported emotional stress was assessed before and after watching, using the STAI-State and seven Visual Analog Scales. Memory, both free recall and recognition, was assessed after 24-28 h. Watching the consultation evoked significant psychophysiological and self-reported stress responses. However, investigating the associations between 24 psychophysiological arousal measures, eight self-reported stress measures and free recall and recognition of information resulted in one significant, small (partial) correlation (r = 0.19). Considering multiple testing, this significant result was probably due to chance. Alternative analytical methods yielded identical results, strengthening our conclusion that no evidence was found for relationships between variables of interest. These null-findings are highly relevant, as they may be considered to refute the long-standing, but yet untested assumption that a relationship between stress and memory exists within this context. Moreover, these findings suggest that lowering patients' stress levels during the consultation would probably not be sufficient to raise memory of information to an optimal level. Alternative explanations for these findings are discussed.

Disclosing the Uncertainty Associated with Prognostic Estimates in Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Treatment decision making is often guided by evidence-based probabilities, which may be presented to patients during consultations. These probabilities are intrinsically imperfect and embody 2 types of uncertainties: aleatory uncertainty arising from the unpredictability of future events and epistemic uncertainty arising from limitations in the reliability and accuracy of probability estimates. Risk communication experts have recommended disclosing uncertainty. We examined whether uncertainty was discussed during cancer consultations and whether and how patients perceived uncertainty. METHODS: Consecutive patient consultations with medical oncologists discussing adjuvant treatment in early-stage breast cancer were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded. Patients were interviewed after the consultation to gain insight into their perceptions of uncertainty. RESULTS: In total, 198 patients were included by 27 oncologists. Uncertainty was disclosed in 49% (97/197) of consultations. In those 97 consultations, 23 allusions to epistemic uncertainty were made and 84 allusions to aleatory uncertainty. Overall, the allusions to the precision of the probabilities were somewhat ambiguous. Interviewed patients mainly referred to aleatory uncertainty if not prompted about epistemic uncertainty. Even when specifically asked about epistemic uncertainty, 1 in 4 utterances referred to aleatory uncertainty. When talking about epistemic uncertainty, many patients contradicted themselves. In addition, 1 in 10 patients seemed not to realize that the probabilities communicated during the consultation are imperfect. CONCLUSIONS: Uncertainty is conveyed in only half of patient consultations. When uncertainty is communicated, oncologists mainly refer to aleatory uncertainty. This is also the type of uncertainty that most patients perceive and seem comfortable discussing. Given that it is increasingly common for clinicians to discuss outcome probabilities with their patients, guidance on whether and how to best communicate uncertainty is urgently needed.

Use of implicit persuasion in decision making about adjuvant cancer treatment: A potential barrier to shared decision making.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is widely advocated, especially for preference-sensitive decisions like those on adjuvant treatment for early-stage cancer. Here, decision making involves a subjective trade-off between benefits and side-effects, and therefore, patients' informed preferences should be taken into account. If clinicians consciously or unconsciously steer patients towards the option they think is in their patients' best interest (i.e. implicit persuasion), they may be unwittingly subverting their own efforts to implement SDM. We assessed the frequency of use of implicit persuasion during consultations and whether the use of implicit persuasion was associated with expected treatment benefit and/or decision making. METHODS: Observational study design in which consecutive consultations about adjuvant systemic therapy with stage I-II breast cancer patients treated at oncology outpatient clinics of general teaching hospitals and university medical centres were audiotaped, transcribed and coded by two researchers independently. RESULTS: In total, 105 patients (median age = 59; range: 35-87 years) were included. A median of five (range: 2-10) implicitly persuasive behaviours were employed per consultation. The number of behaviours used did not differ by disease stage (P = 0.07), but did differ by treatment option presented (P = 0.002) and nodal status (P = 0.01). About 50% of patients with stage I or node-negative disease were steered towards undergoing chemotherapy, whereas 96% of patients were steered towards undergoing endocrine therapy, irrespective of expected treatment benefit. Decisions were less often postponed if more implicit persuasion was used (P = 0.03). INTERPRETATION: Oncologists frequently use implicit persuasion, steering patients towards the treatment option that they think is in their patients' best interest. Expected treatment benefit does not always seem to be the driving force behind implicit persuasion. Awareness of one's use of these steering behaviours during decision making is a first step to help overcome the performance gap between advocating and implementing SDM.

Investigating the Potential Contribution of Patient Rating Sites to Hospital Supervision: Exploratory Results From an Interview Study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Over the last decades, the patient perspective on health care quality has been unconditionally integrated into quality management. For several years now, patient rating sites have been rapidly gaining attention. These offer a new approach toward hearing the patient's perspective on the quality of health care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to explore whether and how patient reviews of hospitals, as reported on rating sites, have the potential to contribute to health care inspector's daily supervision of hospital care. METHODS: Given the unexplored nature of the topic, an interview study among hospital inspectors was designed in the Netherlands. We performed 2 rounds of interviews with 10 senior inspectors, addressing their use and their judgment on the relevance of review data from a rating site. RESULTS: All 10 Dutch senior hospital inspectors participated in this research. The inspectors initially showed some reluctance to use the major patient rating site in their daily supervision. This was mainly because of objections such as worries about how representative they are, subjectivity, and doubts about the relevance of patient reviews for supervision. However, confrontation with, and assessment of, negative reviews by the inspectors resulted in 23% of the reviews being deemed relevant for risk identification. Most inspectors were cautiously positive about the contribution of the reviews to their risk identification. CONCLUSIONS: Patient rating sites may be of value to the risk-based supervision of hospital care carried out by the Health Care Inspectorate. Health care inspectors do have several objections against the use of patient rating sites for daily supervision. However, when they are presented with texts of negative reviews from a hospital under their supervision, it appears that most inspectors consider it as an additional source of information to detect poor quality of care. Still, it should always be accompanied and verified by other quality and safety indicators. More research on the value and usability of patient rating sites in daily hospital supervision and other health settings is needed.