Effect of Clinician-Expressed Empathy in Advanced Cancer on Different Ethnic Groups: Results from an Experimental Video-Vignette Study.

Background: In advanced cancer, clinician-expressed empathy can improve patients' psychological outcomes. It remains unknown whether all patients benefit equally from empathy. Objective: To explore whether the effect of clinician-expressed empathy on patients' psychological outcomes is moderated by patient ethnicity. Methods: Using an experimental video-vignette design, 160 participants watched a consultation-video with/without added empathy. Using regression analysis, the moderating effect of ethnicity (non-Western- vs. Dutch/Western-immigration background) on the relationship between empathy and psychological outcomes was assessed. Results: The main effect of empathy on satisfaction (p = 0.001), trust (p = 0.002), and self-efficacy (p < 0.001) was moderated by ethnicity (satisfaction, p = 0.050; trust, p = 0.066; self-efficacy, p = 0.075). No main effect of empathy nor moderation by ethnicity was found for anxiety (state anxiety: p = 0.284, p = 0.319; current anxiety: p = 0.357, p = 0.949). No main effects of ethnicity (satisfaction, p = 0.942; trust, p = 0.724; self-efficacy, p = 0.244; state anxiety, p = 0.812; current anxiety p = 0.523) were found. Conclusion: In advanced cancer, non-Western patients might benefit most from empathy. Dutch Trial Registration Number: NTR NL8992.

Addressing challenges in information-provision: a qualitative study among oncologists and women with advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for more insight into how to address challenges of information-provision for women with advanced breast cancer. We aimed to explore oncologists' and patients' views on (i) the challenges of information-provision, and (ii) possible strategies to address these challenges, meanwhile (iii) exploring the possible facilitating role of positive expectations and empathy. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were held with oncologists (n = 10) and women with advanced breast cancer (n = 14). Principles of Thematic Analysis were followed, with two researchers analyzing transcribed data, supported by Atlas.ti software. RESULTS: Taken together the data from oncologists and patients, we found that when communicating with patients with advanced cancer, oncologists face challenges, including handling patients' unrealistic disease (status) beliefs, and choosing approaches for discussing available treatment options and their side effects. Possible strategies to address these challenges include balancing information with acceptance of denial, and using medical expertise to guide treatment discussions. A sensitive issue is whether to discuss the option of no anti-cancer treatment. Meanwhile, approaches and preferences for discussions of side effects vary. Positive expectations and empathy can facilitate information-provision by creating space and helping patients to open up more. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating oncologists' and patients' views, oncologists can provide realistic information while also, temporarily, accepting denial, and can use their medical expertise to address challenges around unrealistic beliefs and discussion of treatment options. Finding ways to tailor discussions of no anti-cancer treatment and side-effect information are needed. Positive expectations and empathy might facilitate - tailored - information-provision, leading ultimately to patient-centered care lying at the heart of medicine.

The power of clinician-expressed empathy to increase information recall in advanced breast cancer care: an observational study in clinical care, exploring the mediating role of anxiety.

OBJECTIVE: Experimental studies have found that clinician-expressed empathy improves patients' information recall in (advanced) cancer consultations. It remains unclear, however, whether these results are generalizable to clinical care and, if so, what the underlying mechanism is. We aimed to i) determine the relationship between clinician-expressed empathy and patients' information recall in clinical advanced breast cancer consultations; and ii) test whether the relationship between clinician-expressed empathy and recall is mediated by a decrease in patients' anxiety. METHODS: Forty-one consultations between oncologists and female patients with advanced breast cancer were audio recorded. Patients' post-consultation information recall and pre- and post-consultation anxiety (0-100) were assessed. Recall was scored according to a self-created questionnaire. Clinician-expressed empathy (0-100) was assessed by observers. Structural Equation Modelling was used for all analyses. RESULTS: Participants remembered 61% of the information discussed. Clinician-expressed empathy significantly increased patients' total information recall (p = .041) and recall of treatment aims/positive effects (p = .028). The mediating role of anxiety could not be established. CONCLUSION: Although the underlying mechanism remains unclear, clinicians have a powerful tool to improve seriously ill breast cancer patients' recall of information: empathy. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These insights should encourage clinicians to express empathy; practical communication training might prove helpful.

The Effect of Prognostic Communication on Patient Outcomes in Palliative Cancer Care: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: While prognostic information is considered important for treatment decision-making, physicians struggle to communicate prognosis to advanced cancer patients. This systematic review aimed to offer up-to-date, evidence-based guidance on prognostic communication in palliative oncology. METHODS: PubMed and PsycInfo were searched until September 2019 for literature on the association between prognostic disclosure (strategies) and patient outcomes in palliative cancer care, and its moderators. Methodological quality was reported. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included. Concerning prognostic disclosure, results revealed a positive association with patients' prognostic awareness. Findings showed no or positive associations between prognostic disclosure and the physician-patient relationship or the discussion of care preferences. Evidence for an association with the documentation of care preferences or physical outcomes was lacking. Findings on the emotional consequences of prognostic disclosure were multifaceted. Concerning disclosure strategies, affective communication seemingly reduced patients' physiological arousal and improved perceived physician's support. Affective and explicit communication showed no or beneficial effects on patients' psychological well-being and satisfaction. Communicating multiple survival scenarios improved prognostic understanding. Physicians displaying expertise, positivity and collaboration fostered hope. Evidence on demographic, clinical and personality factors moderating the effect of prognostic communication was weak. CONCLUSION: If preferred by patients, physicians could disclose prognosis using sensible strategies. The combination of explicit and affective communication, multiple survival scenarios and expert, positive, collaborative behaviour likely benefits most patients. Still, more evidence is needed, and tailoring communication to individual patients is warranted. IMPLICATIONS: Future research should examine the effect of prognostic communication on psychological well-being over time and treatment decision-making, and focus on individualising care.

Shifts in patients' question-asking behaviour between 2007 and 2016: An observational study of video-recorded general practice consultations.

OBJECTIVE: To gain insight into patient participation in general practice by examining if and how patients' question-asking behaviour has changed over the years (2007-2016). METHODS: A random set of real-life video-recorded consultations collected in 2015-2016 (n = 437) was observed and compared with that of a former study in 2007-2008 (n = 533). Patients' question-asking behaviour was coded using an adapted RIAS protocol containing six categories: medical condition/therapeutic regimen; psychosocial; social context; lifestyle; ask for opinion doctor; practical. GPs and patients completed questionnaires about their background characteristics. Data were analysed using multi-level analysis. RESULTS: Patients asked fewer questions in 2016 than in 2007. The type of question-asking behaviour changed significantly: in particular medical questions decreased while practical questions increased. Less educated patients asked significantly more practical questions than higher educated patients. CONCLUSION: Contrary to our expectations, patients' question-asking has decreased in 2016 compared to 2007, while the average consultation length has increased. The type of questions shifted from medical to practical, especially in less educated patients. It seems that GPs' professional role has expanded over time, since patients nowadays ask their GP more non-medical questions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: GPs probably could continue facilitating patient involvement by more frequently using partnership-building and supportive communication.

Patients' and Clinicians' Perceptions of Clinician-Expressed Empathy in Advanced Cancer Consultations and Associations with Patient Outcomes.

Background: Empathy is a cornerstone of effective communication. However, clinicians' and patients' perceptions of clinician-expressed empathy might differ. The independent perceptions of patients and clinicians on clinician-expressed empathy in advanced cancer consultations and the associations of these perceptions with patient outcomes are unknown. Objective: We assessed (1) patients' and clinicians' independent perceptions of clinician-(self-)expressed empathy in advanced cancer consultations and (2) the associations between these perceptions and affective patient outcomes. Methods: This observational study included data from 41 consultations in the advanced breast cancer setting. Postconsultation, patients' and clinicians' perceptions of clinician-expressed empathy were assessed, as well as patients' (1) pre-post anxiety, (2) post-anxiety, (3) emotional well-being, and (4) satisfaction. Multilevel regression analyses were run to draw conclusions. Results: Patients perceived higher levels of empathy than clinicians, without a significant relationship between the two (mean [M] = 85.47, standard deviation [SD] = 14.00 vs. M = 61.88, SD = 15.30, 0-100 scale; ß = 0.14, p < 0.138, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.04 to 0.32). Higher patient-perceived empathy was associated with decreased anxiety [(1) ß = -0.67, p = 0.039, 95% CI = -1.30 to -0.03; (2) ß = -0.15, p = 0.042, 95% CI = -0.30 to -0.01], higher satisfaction (ß = 0.05, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.03 to 0.08), and lower emotional distress (ß = -0.32, p < 0.001, 95% CI = -0.48 to -0.16). There were no associations with clinicians' perceptions [(1) ß = -0.34, p = 0.307, 95% CI = -1.00 to 0.31; (2) ß = -0.02, p = 0.824, 95% CI = -0.17 to 0.14; (3) ß < 0.01, p = 0.918, 95% CI = -0.03 to 0.02; (4) ß = 0.08, p = 0.335, 95% CI = -0.08 to 0.25]. Conclusions: Patients' and clinicians' empathy perceptions differed. In improving patient outcomes, the focus should be on patients' perceptions of clinician-expressed empathy. Future research could focus on ways to elicit patients' perceptions of empathy with the higher aim of improving patient outcomes.

To what degree do patients actively choose their healthcare provider at the point of referral by their GP? A video observation study.

BACKGROUND: Many countries in Europe have implemented managed competition and patient choice during the last decade. With the introduction of managed competition, health insurers also became an important stakeholder. They purchase services on behalf of their customers and are allowed to contract healthcare providers selectively. It has, therefore, become increasingly important to take one's insurance into account when choosing a provider. There is little evidence that patients make active choices in the way that policymakers assume they do. This research aims to investigate, firstly, the role of patients in choosing a healthcare provider at the point of referral, then the role of the GP and, finally, the influence of the health insurer/insurance policies within this process. METHODS: We videotaped a series of everyday consultations between Dutch GPs and their patients during 2015 and 2016. In 117 of these consultations, with 28 GPs, the patient was referred to another healthcare provider. These consultations were coded by three observers using an observation protocol which assessed the role of the patient, GP, and the influence of the health insurer during the referral. RESULTS: Patients were divided into three groups: patients with little or no input, patients with some input, and those with a lot of input. Just over half of the patients (56%) seemed to have some, or a lot of, input into the choice of a healthcare provider at the point of referral by their GP. In addition, in almost half of the consultations (47%), GPs inquired about their patients' preferences regarding a healthcare provider. Topics regarding the health insurance or insurance policy of a patient were rarely (14%) discussed at the point of referral. CONCLUSIONS: Just over half of the patients appear to have some, or a lot of, input into their choice of a healthcare provider at the point of referral by their GP. However, the remainder of the patients had little or no input. If more patient choice continues to be an important aim for policy makers, patients should be encouraged to actively choose the healthcare provider who best fits their needs and preferences.

The Use of Expectancy and Empathy When Communicating With Patients With Advanced Breast Cancer; an Observational Study of Clinician-Patient Consultations.

Background: Information provision about prognosis, treatments, and side-effects is important in advanced cancer, yet also associated with impaired patient well-being. To counter potential detrimental effects, communication strategies based on placebo and nocebo effect mechanisms might be promising to apply in daily practice. This study aimed to provide more insight into how often and how oncologists use expectancy and empathy expressions in consultations with patients with advanced breast cancer. Methods: Forty-five consultations between oncologists and patients were audiotaped. To determine how often expectancy and empathy expressions were used, a coding scheme was created. Most consultations (n = 33) were coded and discussed by two coders, and the remaining 13 were coded by one coder. To determine how expectancy and empathy expressions were used, principles of inductive content analysis were followed. Results: Discussed evaluation (i.e., scan) results were good (n = 26,58%) or uncertain (n = 12,27%) and less often bad (n = 7,15%). Uncertain expectations about prognosis, treatment outcomes, and side effects occurred in 13, 38, and 27 consultations (29%, 85%, and 56%), followed by negative expectations in 8, 26, and 28 consultations (18%, 58%, and 62%) and positive expectations in 6, 34, and 17 consultations (13%, 76%, and 38%). When oncologists provided expectancy expressions, they tapped into three different dimensions: relational, personal, and explicit. Positive expectations emphasized the doctor-patient relationship, while negative expectations focused on the severity of the illness, and uncertainty was characterized by a balance between (potential) negative outcomes and hope. Observed generic or specific empathy expressions were regularly provided, most frequently understanding (n = 29,64% of consultations), respecting (n = 17,38%), supporting (n = 16,36%), and exploring (n = 16,36%). A lack of empathy occurred less often and contained, among others, not responding to patients' emotional concerns (n = 13,27% of consultations), interrupting (n = 7,16%), and an absence of understanding (n = 4,9%). Conclusion: In consultations with mainly positive or uncertain medical outcomes, oncologists predominantly made use of uncertain expectations (hope for the best, prepare for the worst) and used several empathic behaviors. Replication studies, e.g., in these and other medical situations, are needed. Follow-up studies should test the effect of specific communication strategies on patient outcomes, to counter potential negative effects of information provision. Studies should focus on uncertain situations. Ultimately, specific placebo and nocebo effect-inspired communication strategies can be harnessed in clinical care to improve patient outcomes.

Availability and effectiveness of decision aids for supporting shared decision making in patients with advanced colorectal and lung cancer: Results from a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Shared decision making is not always commonplace in advanced colorectal or lung cancer care. Decision aids (DAs) might be helpful. This review aimed (a) to provide an overview of DAs for patients with advanced colorectal or lung cancer and assess their availability; and (b) to assess their effectiveness if possible. METHODS: A systematic literature search (PubMed/EMBASE/PsycINFO/CINAHL) and Internet and expert searches were carried out to identify relevant DAs. Data from the DAs included were extracted and the quality of studies, evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and effectiveness (International Patient Decision Aid Standards) of DAs were determined. RESULTS: Ten of the 12 DAs included (four colorectal cancer, four lung cancer and four generic) are still available. Most (9/12) were applicable throughout the disease pathway and usable for all decisions, or to the decision for supportive care with/without anti-cancer therapy. Seven studies tested effectiveness. Effects on patient outcomes varied, but were generally weakly positive (e.g., DAs improved patient satisfaction) with low evidence. Study quality was fair to good. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of readily available DAs that have been demonstrated to be effective in advanced colorectal or lung cancer. Rigorous testing of the effects of currently available and future DAs, to improve patient outcomes, is urgently needed.

Shared decision-making in general practice: an observational study comparing 2007 with 2015.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) is, largely, espoused as the preferred model for making decisions in everyday health care. Studies exploring the application of SDM in primary care practice are still lacking. OBJECTIVES: This study explores how GPs involve their patients in decision-making, if application of SDM has increased over time (2007-15), and what factors are associated with it. METHODS: We investigated the application of SDM by Dutch GPs by analysing a random set of real-life video-recorded consultations collected in 2007 (n = 50) and 2015 (n = 50). SDM was assessed by observing patient involvement in decision making (OPTION), a reliable and valid instrument measuring the extent to which clinicians involve patients in decision-making by coding 12 behavioural items. In addition, GPs and patients completed questionnaires about their background characteristics. The potential determinants for application of SDM by Dutch GPs (including year of measurement, sex and age of patients and GPs, the nature of complaints, consultation duration and the type of decision discussed) were analysed using multilevel analysis [with patients (Level 1) nested within GPs (Level 2)]. RESULTS: In 2015, GPs applied SDM more often compared with 2007 according to OPTION. In consultations with older patients, there is less application of SDM by GPs. CONCLUSIONS: Although application of SDM by Dutch GPs has increased, low overall SDM scores still leave room for improvement. GPs should elicit the patient's preferred role in the decision-making process at any time, in particular in consultations with older patients.