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).

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.

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.

Deciding about (neo-)adjuvant rectal and breast cancer treatment: Missed opportunities for shared decision making.

BACKGROUND: The first step in shared decision making (SDM) is creating choice awareness. This is particularly relevant in consultations concerning preference-sensitive treatment decisions, e.g. those addressing (neo-)adjuvant therapy. Awareness can be achieved by explicitly stating, as the 'reason for encounter', that a treatment decision needs to be made. It is unknown whether oncologists express such reason for encounter. This study aims to establish: 1) if 'making a treatment decision' is stated as a reason for the encounter and if not, what other reason for encounter is provided; and 2) whether mentioning that a treatment decision needs to be made is associated with enhanced patient involvement in decision making. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Consecutive first consultations with: 1) radiation oncologists and rectal cancer patients; or 2) medical oncologists and breast cancer patients, facing a preference-sensitive treatment decision, were audiotaped. The tapes were transcribed and coded using an instrument developed for the study. Oncologists' involvement of patients in decision making was coded using the OPTION-scale. RESULTS: Oncologists (N = 33) gave a reason for encounter in 70/100 consultations, usually (N = 52/70, 74%) at the start of the consultation. The reason for encounter stated was 'making a treatment decision' in 3/100 consultations, and 'explaining treatment details' in 44/100 consultations. The option of foregoing adjuvant treatment was not explicitly presented in any consultation. Oncologist' involvement of patients in decision making was below baseline (Md OPTION-score = 10). Given the small number of consultations in which the need to make a treatment decision was stated, we could not investigate the impact thereof on patient involvement. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that oncologists rarely express that a treatment decision needs to be made in consultations concerning preference-sensitive treatment decisions. Therefore, patients might not realize that foregoing (neo-)adjuvant treatment is a viable choice. Oncologists miss a crucial opportunity to facilitate SDM.

Trends in patient satisfaction in Dutch university medical centers: room for improvement for all.

BACKGROUND: Results of patient satisfaction research provide hospitals areas for quality improvement. Although it may take several years to achieve such improvement, not all hospitals analyze changes in patient satisfaction over time structurally. Consequently, they lack information from patients' perspective on effectiveness of improvement programs. This study presents a trend analysis of the patient satisfaction scores in the eight university medical centers in the Netherlands. We focus on the trends, effect size and its consequences for improving patient-centered care. METHODS: The Core Questionnaire for the assessment of Patient satisfaction (COPS) was used in four large-scale nationwide comparative studies (2003-2009). Data were analyzed at a national level, and for each academic hospital separately. We analyzed the polynomial contrasts in the four measurements by performing an univariate analysis of variance (ANCOVA). The trend lines are presented graphically, with the means, SD, F-statistics and the standardized effect size including confidence intervals expressed by Cohen's d. By analyzing the (logit transformed) percentages of very satisfied patients we examined the change scores. RESULTS: The dataset consisted of 58,055 inpatients and 79,498 outpatients. Significant positive trends were found on national level and hospital level, especially in outpatient departments. Improvement was especially seen on the dimensions "information" and "discharge and aftercare". Not only university medical centers with a lower score at the start, but surprisingly some best practices and university medical centers with a high initial score improved. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that significant trends in patient satisfaction can be identified on a national and a hospital level, in inpatient and outpatient departments. The observed effect size expressed by Cohen's d is rather small. Hospitals have found room for improvement, even hospitals with initial high satisfaction scores. We recommend that hospitals monitor their patient satisfaction scores over time and relate these to quality interventions and organizational changes. Furthermore, we recommend to expand the research to subgroups of unsatisfied patients to improve patient-centered care for all patients.

Physical activity and survival of postmenopausal, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients: results of the Tamoxifen Exemestane Adjuvant Multicenter Lifestyle study.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity has been related to improved breast cancer outcomes. Especially in the older breast cancer population, physical activity may be important because old age is associated with comorbidities and decreased physical function. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relation between physical activity and overall survival, breast cancer-specific survival, and recurrence in several age groups of postmenopausal breast cancer patients. METHODS: The Tamoxifen Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational Lifestyle study was a side study of the Tamoxifen Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational trial and prospectively investigated lifestyle habits of postmenopausal, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients. The relations between prediagnosis and postdiagnosis physical activity and overall survival, breast cancer-specific survival, and recurrence-free survival were assessed with Cox regression and competing risk regression models. RESULTS: Among 521 patients, high levels of physical activity before and after the diagnosis were associated with better overall survival (the multivariate hazard ratios were 0.50 [95% confidence interval = 0.26-0.98] and 0.57 (95% confidence interval = 0.26-1.40] for patients who were very active before and after the diagnosis, respectively, in comparison with inactive patients). This was most evident in patients who were 65 years old or older. Physical activity was not significantly associated with breast cancer-specific survival or the relapse-free period. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival was better for patients who were active before and after the diagnosis. In contrast with previous studies, breast cancer survival and the risk of recurrence were not significantly associated with physical activity. These findings confirmed the need for more studies investigating the use of physical activity to supplement breast cancer treatment in older patients.

The psychophysiology of medical communication. Linking two worlds of research.

OBJECTIVE: Medical communication is goal oriented behavior. As such, it can be modeled as a chain of decisions, resulting from cognitive and emotional processes each potentially associated with psychophysiological reactions. Psychophysiological may be helpful to detect small changes in affect or arousal in the course of a consultation that would be difficult to detect by other evaluations of the process, like self-reports. The question is how psychophysiological communication research should be modeled for unraveling in more detail the cognitive, emotional and interpersonal processes which underlie physician and patient behavior. METHODS: In the world of medical communication research the six-function model of medical communication reveals a number of fundamental perceptual, cognitive and emotional processes which may evoke psychophysiological responses. The world of psychophysiological research encompasses domains of perception, mental imagery, anticipation and action which all have close connections with fundamental tasks in communication. CONCLUSION: This paper discusses ten methodological issues in linking continuous psychophysiological data to verbal and nonverbal events in a medical consultation observed with the Verona coding system. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: When linking the two worlds of research, the methodological challenges discussed need to be solved to obtain a valid and reliable application of psychophysiological measures in medical communication research.

Assessing inpatients' satisfaction with hospital care: should we prefer evaluation or satisfaction ratings?

Inpatients' satisfaction with hospital care is often assessed by questionnaire. From a psychometrical standpoint, this method has drawbacks, however. We further investigated which item response format would maximise desirable outcomes regarding characteristics of the sample obtained (response rate and representativeness) and psychometric properties of the instrument (e.g. missing items responses, variance, validity) as an initial study into this question was indecisive. Subjects were 1184 discharged inpatients, of which 728 patients (62%) responded. They filled out a 55-item satisfaction questionnaire, addressing 12 aspects of care, using either a 10-point Evaluation scale ranging from "very poor" to "excellent" (E10) or a 5-point Satisfaction scale ranging from "dissatisfied" to "very satisfied" (S5). Both E10 and S5 showed good psychometric properties, but S5 yielded a better score distribution. Other results also favoured S5, but differences were small. In conclusion, different response formats do not yield widely different results. Thus, in choosing between them, convenience could be a decisive factor.