Interventions for improving medical students' interpersonal communication in medical consultations.

BACKGROUND: Communication is a common element in all medical consultations, affecting a range of outcomes for doctors and patients. The increasing demand for medical students to be trained to communicate effectively has seen the emergence of interpersonal communication skills as core graduate competencies in medical training around the world. Medical schools have adopted a range of approaches to develop and evaluate these competencies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for medical students that aim to improve interpersonal communication in medical consultations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched five electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and ERIC (Educational Resource Information Centre) in September 2020, with no language, date, or publication status restrictions. We also screened reference lists of relevant articles and contacted authors of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs (C-RCTs), and non-randomised controlled trials (quasi-RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of interventions delivered to students in undergraduate or graduate-entry medical programmes. We included studies of interventions aiming to improve medical students' interpersonal communication during medical consultations. Included interventions targeted communication skills associated with empathy, relationship building, gathering information, and explanation and planning, as well as specific communication tasks such as listening, appropriate structure, and question style. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently reviewed all search results, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of included studies, and rated the quality of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We found 91 publications relating to 76 separate studies (involving 10,124 students): 55 RCTs, 9 quasi-RCTs, 7 C-RCTs, and 5 quasi-C-RCTs. We performed meta-analysis according to comparison and outcome. Among both effectiveness and comparative effectiveness analyses, we separated outcomes reporting on overall communication skills, empathy, rapport or relationship building, patient perceptions/satisfaction, information gathering, and explanation and planning. Overall communication skills and empathy were further divided as examiner- or simulated patient-assessed. The overall quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low, and there was high, unexplained heterogeneity. Overall, interventions had positive effects on most outcomes, but generally small effect sizes and evidence quality limit the conclusions that can be drawn. Communication skills interventions in comparison to usual curricula or control may improve both overall communication skills (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.31; 18 studies, 1356 participants; I² = 90%; low-quality evidence) and empathy (SMD 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.05; 6 studies, 831 participants; I² = 86%; low-quality evidence) when assessed by experts, but not by simulated patients. Students' skills in information gathering probably also improve with educational intervention (SMD 1.07, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.54; 5 studies, 405 participants; I² = 78%; moderate-quality evidence), but there may be little to no effect on students' rapport (SMD 0.18, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.51; 9 studies, 834 participants; I² = 81%; low-quality evidence), and effects on information giving skills are uncertain (very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether experiential interventions improve overall communication skills in comparison to didactic approaches (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.19; 4 studies, 1578 participants; I² = 4%; very low-quality evidence). Electronic learning approaches may have little to no effect on students' empathy scores (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.43; 3 studies, 421 participants; I² = 82%; low-quality evidence) or on rapport (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.38; 3 studies, 176 participants; I² = 19%; moderate-quality evidence) compared to face-to-face approaches. There may be small negative effects of electronic interventions on information giving skills (low-quality evidence), and effects on information gathering skills are uncertain (very low-quality evidence).  Personalised/specific feedback probably improves overall communication skills to a small degree in comparison to generic or no feedback (SMD 0.58, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.87; 6 studies, 502 participants; I² = 56%; moderate-quality evidence). There may be small positive effects of personalised feedback on empathy and information gathering skills (low quality), but effects on rapport are uncertain (very low quality), and we found no evidence on information giving skills. We are uncertain whether role-play with simulated patients outperforms peer role-play in improving students' overall communication skills (SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.67; 4 studies, 637 participants; I² = 87%; very low-quality evidence). There may be little to no difference between effects of simulated patient and peer role-play on students' empathy (low-quality evidence) with no evidence on other outcomes for this comparison. Descriptive syntheses of results that could not be included in meta-analyses across outcomes and comparisons were mixed, as were effects of different interventions and comparisons on specific communication skills assessed by the included trials. Quality of evidence was downgraded due to methodological limitations across several risk of bias domains, high unexplained heterogeneity, and imprecision of results. In general, results remain consistent in sensitivity analysis based on risk of bias and adjustment for clustering. No adverse effects were reported.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review represents a substantial body of evidence from which to draw, but further research is needed to strengthen the quality of the evidence base, to consider the long-term effects of interventions on students' behaviour as they progress through training and into practice, and to assess effects of interventions on patient outcomes. Efforts to standardise assessment and evaluation of interpersonal skills will strengthen future research efforts.

A national study of the unmet needs of support persons of haematological cancer survivors in rural and urban areas of Australia.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare support persons of haematological cancer survivors living in rural and urban areas in regard to the type, prevalence and factors associated with reporting unmet needs. METHODS: One thousand and four (792 urban and 193 rural) support persons of adults diagnosed with haematological cancer were recruited from five Australian state population-based cancer registries. Participants completed the Support Person Unmet Needs Survey (SPUNS) that assessed the level of unmet needs experienced over the past month across six domains. RESULTS: Overall, 66% of support persons had at least one 'moderate, high or very high' unmet need and 24% (n = 182) reported having multiple (i.e. 6 or more) 'high/very high' unmet needs in the past month. There were no significant differences between rural and urban support persons in the prevalence of multiple unmet needs or mean total unmet needs scores. There were however significant differences in the types of 'high/very high' unmet needs with support persons living in rural areas more likely to report finance-related unmet needs. Support persons who indicated they had difficulty paying bills had significantly higher odds of reporting multiple 'high/very high' unmet needs. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first large, population-based study to compare the unmet needs of support persons of haematological cancer survivors living in rural and urban areas. Findings confirm previous evidence that supporting a person diagnosed with haematological cancer correlates with a high level of unmet needs and highlight the importance of developing systemic strategies for assisting support persons, especially in regard to making financial assistance and travel subsidies known and readily accessible to those living in rural areas.

To adhere or not to adhere: Rates and reasons of medication adherence in hematological cancer patients.

To conduct a comprehensive review to examine among hematological cancer patients: (1) rates of adherence to self-administered cancer treatments; and (2) factors impacting on their adherence. Fifty two eligible publications were identified. The majority focused on Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia (CML) (n=40) and Acute Lymphoid Leukaemia (ALL) (n=11) patients. Adherence rates varied and depended on the definition and measures used. Patient understanding about their disease and treatment, and forgetting to take their medication impacted on patients' level of adherence; while the use of reminders reduced forgetfulness. There is a lack of valid and reliable information relating to medication adherence of hematological cancer patients. Based on the limited data available we provide a profile of CML and ALL patients at potential risk of medication non-adherence, as well as a proposed checklist that can be used by health care providers in assessing and supporting patients in adhering to their medication.

Are Australian clinicians monitoring medication adherence in hematological cancer survivors? Two cross-sectional studies.

BACKGROUND: Hematological cancer survivors are growing in number and increasingly rely on oral therapy. Given known poor outcomes associated with non-adherence and previous evidence that many patients do not fully adhere to their treatment regimen, this study aimed to determine the degree to which clinicians monitor adherence to oral medication in hematological cancer survivors. METHODS: Data was combined from two cross-sectional surveys of a heterogeneous sample of 431 hematological cancer survivors recruited from three outpatient hematology clinics in three different states (n = 215) and one state cancer registry (n = 216) in Australia. Participants completed a self-administered survey that included demographic characteristics and a 7-item measure of medication adherence developed by the researchers specifically for the purpose of the studies. RESULTS: Of the 431 participants, 37 % (n = 160) reported currently taking daily cancer-related medication. Of these, 14 % (n = 23) were found to be non-adherent with 'missing a dose' being the most commonly reported non-adherent behaviour. Only 41 % of survivors indicated that their hematologist or cancer clinician had 'always' asked about their cancer-related medication during their last six visits. CONCLUSIONS: Non-adherence to oral therapy remains a problem in hematological cancer survivors, yet clinicians in Australia do not appear to be regularly monitoring adherence in their patients. Given an increasing dependence on oral therapy in clinical hematology and medical oncology and the importance of medication adherence to optimising health outcomes, greater effort should be invested in developing effective interventions to improve support and adherence monitoring by cancer clinicians and GPs.

What do haematological cancer survivors want help with? A cross-sectional investigation of unmet supportive care needs.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to identify the most prevalent unmet needs of haematological cancer survivors. METHODS: Haematological cancer survivors aged 18-80 years at time of recruitment were selected from four Australian state cancer registries. Survivors completed the Survivor Unmet Needs Survey. The most frequently reported "high/very high" unmet needs items were identified, as well as characteristics associated with the three most prevalent "high/very high" unmet needs reported by haematological cancer survivors. RESULTS: A total of 715 eligible survivors returned a completed survey. "Dealing with feeling tired" (17%), was the most frequently endorsed "high/very high" unmet need. Seven out of the ten most frequently endorsed unmet needs related to emotional health. Higher levels of psychological distress (e.g., anxiety, depression and stress) and indicators of financial burden as a result of cancer (e.g., having used up savings and trouble meeting day-to-day expenses due to cancer) were consistently identified as characteristics associated with the three most prevalent "high/very high" unmet needs. CONCLUSIONS: A minority of haematological cancer survivors endorsed a "high/very high" unmet need on individual items. Additional emotional support may be needed by a minority of survivors. Survivors reporting high levels of psychological distress or those who experience increased financial burden as a result of their cancer diagnosis may be at risk of experiencing the most prevalent "high/very high" unmet needs identified by this study.

Keeping the 'goose' on the menu: response to commentaries on financial incentives in health behaviour change.

We welcome the commentaries by Hagger et al.and Stephens and consider their observations to be timely and constructive. Hagger et al. raise concerns regarding the sustainability of behaviour change once incentives have been removed and their influence on intrinsic motivation. We concur that questions regarding both of these issues remain but argue that, in the case of sustainability, there is some evidence to support long-term behaviour change, given particular conditions. Given that the question of maintenance is applicable to any health intervention, we propose that the role of incentives may be better matched with motivating initial behaviour change, and researchers should explore other mechanisms for sustaining behaviour change and intrinsic motivation, over a longer period of time. Stephens highlights the complexity of health behaviours and warns of the dangers associated with taking an individualised approach to health promotion. We support the need for both downstream and upstream approaches to reducing health inequalities and contend that financial incentives still have a potential role to play in encouraging health behaviour change.

Keeping the 'Goose' on the Menu: Response to Commentaries on Financial Incentives in Health Behaviour Change.

We welcome the commentaries by Hagger et al. and Stephens and consider their observations to be timely and constructive. Hagger et al. raise concerns regarding the sustainability of behaviour change once incentives have been removed and their influence on intrinsic motivation.We concur that questions regarding both of these issues remain but argue that, in the case of sustainability, there is some evidence to support long-term behaviour change, given particular conditions. Given that the question of maintenance is applicable to any health intervention, we propose that the role of incentives may be better matched with motivating initial behaviour change, and researchers should explore other mechanisms for sustaining behaviour change and intrinsic motivation, over a longer period of time.Stephens highlights the complexity of health behaviours and warns of the dangers associated with taking an individualised approach to health promotion.We support the need for both downstream and upstream approaches to reducing health inequalities and contend that financial incentives still have a potential role to play in encouraging health behaviour change.

Format and readability of an enhanced invitation letter did not affect participation rates in a cancer registry-based study: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of an "enhanced" invitation letter in increasing participation in an Australian cancer registry-based study and assess the representativeness of the study sample. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Eight hundred hematological cancer survivors, diagnosed within the last 3 years and aged 18-80 years at recruitment, were selected from one Australian state-based cancer registry. Half were randomly allocated to receive the standard invitation letter (control group). The remaining half received a modified invitation letter, incorporating content and design characteristics recommended to improve written communication (intervention group). RESULTS: Of the 732 eligible survivors, 268 (37%) returned a completed survey. There was no difference in participation between the intervention (n = 131, 36%) and control groups (n = 137, 38%; P = 0.53). Participants were representative of the population for characteristics assessed, except for age group at diagnosis. Survivors 50 years or older at diagnosis had higher odds of returning a completed survey, 50-59 (odds ratio [OR]: 2.53; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.47, 4.35), 60-69 (OR: 2.69; 95% CI: 1.58-4.58), and 70-80 (OR: 1.90; 95% CI: 1.07-3.35), than survivors aged 15-39 years at diagnosis. CONCLUSION: An enhanced invitation letter was not effective in increasing participation of hematological cancer survivors in an Australian cancer registry study. The study sample was moderately representative on variables assessed, with age group at diagnosis the only variable associated with participation. Research should evaluate strategies to increase participation in registry studies and focus on tailoring techniques to patient's age.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Guiding principles for the use of financial incentives in health behaviour change.

BACKGROUND: The use of financial incentives or pay-for-performance programs for health care providers has triggered emerging interest in the use of financial incentives for encouraging health behaviour change. PURPOSE: This paper aims to identify key conditions under which the use of financial incentives for improvements in public health outcomes is most likely to be effective and appropriate. METHODS: We review recent systematic reviews on their effectiveness in changing health behaviour and identify existing moral concerns concerning personal financial incentives. RESULTS: Current evidence indicates that incentives can be effective in driving health behaviour change under certain provisos, while a number of misgivings continue to be deliberated on. We outline a number of key principles for consideration in decisions about the potential use of incentives in leading to public health improvements. CONCLUSION: These key principles can assist policy makers in making decisions on the use of financial incentives directed at achieving improvements in public health.

Problem-based learning: a dissemination success story?

The demand to implement clinical and educational strategies based on evidence has increased in the past two decades. Over a similar time frame, the problem-based learning (PBL) approach has been widely adopted by undergraduate medical schools, in spite of empirical reviews suggesting that its effectiveness may be limited. Students claim that PBL provides a more satisfying learning experience than traditional methods. While such an outcome is desirable, it is substantively less than the original promise of the approach. We hypothesise that the widespread adoption of PBL may be more a consequence of the approach meeting criteria for successful dissemination than of demonstrable positive educational outcomes. We suggest that greater effort should be taken to articulate and measure important undergraduate educational outcomes. Alternatives to the PBL approach should be actively considered.