Patient-oncologist Communication Research Articles

Prognostic communication about lung cancer in the precision oncology era: A multiple-perspective qualitative study.

Although most patients with cancer prefer to know their prognosis, prognostic communication between oncologists and patients is often insufficient. Targeted therapies for lung cancer improve survival yet are not curative and produce variable responses. This study sought to describe how oncologists communicate about prognosis with patients receiving targeted therapies for lung cancer. This qualitative study included 39 patients with advanced lung cancer with targetable mutations, 14 caregivers, and 10 oncologists. Semistructured interviews with patients and caregivers and focus groups or interviews with oncologists were conducted to explore their experiences with prognostic communication. One oncology follow-up visit was audio-recorded per patient. A framework approach was used to analyze interview transcripts, and a content analysis of patient-oncologist dialogue was conducted. Themes were identified within each source and then integrated across sources to create a multidimensional description of prognostic communication. Six themes in prognostic communication were identified: Patients with targetable mutations develop a distinct identity in the lung cancer community that affects their information-seeking and self-advocacy; oncologists set high expectations for targeted therapy; the uncertain availability of new therapies complicates prognostic discussions; patients and caregivers have variable information preferences; patients raise questions about progression by asking about physical symptoms or scan results; and patients' expectations of targeted therapy influence their medical decision-making. Optimistic patient-oncologist communication shapes the expectations of patients receiving targeted therapy for lung cancer and affects their decision-making. Further research and clinical guidance are needed to help oncologists to communicate uncertain outcomes effectively.

Systemic Therapy Decision Making in Advanced Cancer: A Qualitative Analysis of Patient-Oncologist Encounters.

We sought to characterize patient-oncologist communication and decision making about continuing or limiting systemic therapy in encounters after an initial consultation, with a particular focus on whether and how oncologists foster shared decision making (SDM). We performed content analysis of outpatient oncology encounters at two US National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers audio recorded between November 2010 and September 2014. A multidisciplinary team used a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. We used a combination of random and purposive sampling. We restricted quantitative frequency counts to the coded random sample but included all sampled encounters in qualitative thematic analysis. Among 31 randomly sampled dyads with three encounters each, systemic therapy decision making was discussed in 90% (84 of 93) encounters. Thirty-four (37%) broached limiting therapy, which 27 (79%) framed as temporary, nine (26%) as completion of a standard regimen, and five (15%) as permanent discontinuation. Thematic analysis of these 93 encounters, plus five encounters purposively sampled for permanent discontinuation, found that (1) patients and oncologists framed continuing therapy as the default, (2) deficiencies in the SDM process (facilitating choice awareness, discussing options, and incorporating patient preferences) contributed to this default, and (3) oncologists use persuasion rather than deliberation when broaching discontinuation. In this study of outpatient encounters between patients with advanced cancer and their oncologists, when discussing systemic therapy, there exists a default to continue systemic therapy, and deficiencies in SDM contribute to this default.

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

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

Impact of Telemedicine on Patient Satisfaction and Perceptions of Care Quality in Radiation Oncology.

The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed cancer care with the rapid expansion of telemedicine, but given the limited use of telemedicine in oncology, concerns have been raised about the quality of care being delivered. We assessed the patient experience with telemedicine in routine radiation oncology practice to determine satisfaction, quality of care, and opportunities for optimization. Patients seen within a multistate comprehensive cancer center for prepandemic office visits and intrapandemic telemedicine visits in December 2019 through June 2020 who completed patient experience questionnaires were evaluated. Patient satisfaction between office and telemedicine consultations were compared, patient visit-type preferences were assessed, and factors associated with an office visit preference were determined. In total, 1,077 patients were assessed (office visit, n=726; telemedicine, n=351). The telemedicine-consult survey response rate was 40%. No significant differences were seen in satisfaction scores between office and telemedicine consultations, including the appointment experience versus expectation, quality of physician's explanation, and level of physician concern and friendliness. Among telemedicine survey respondents, 45% and 34% preferred telemedicine and office visits, respectively, and 21% had no preference for their visit type. Most respondents found their confidence in their physician (90%), understanding of the treatment plan (88%), and confidence in their treatment (87%) to be better or no different than with an office visit. Patients with better performance status and who were married/partnered were more likely to prefer in-person office visit consultations (odds ratio [OR], 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00-1.08]; P=.047, and 2.41 [95% CI, 1.14-5.47]; P=.009, respectively). Patients with telephone-only encounters were more likely to report better treatment plan understanding with an office visit (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.00-4.77; P=.04). This study is the first to assess telemedicine in routine radiation oncology practice, and found high patient satisfaction and confidence in their care. Optimization of telemedicine in oncology should be a priority, specifically access to audiovisual capabilities that can improve patient-oncologist communication.

Exploring Herbal Medicine Use during Palliative Cancer Care: The Integrative Physician as a Facilitator of Pharmacist-Patient-Oncologist Communication.

Oncology patients frequently use herbal and other forms of complementary medicine, often without the knowledge of oncologists, pharmacists, and other healthcare professionals responsible for their care. Oncology healthcare professionals may lack the knowledge needed to guide their patients on the safe and effective use of herbal medicinal products, a number of which have potentially harmful effects, which include direct toxicity and negative herb–drug interactions. The current review addresses the prevalence and expectations of oncology patients from herbal medicine, as well as evidence for the beneficial or harmful effects of this practice (potential and actual), especially when the herbal products are used in conjunction with anticancer agents. Models of integrative oncology care are described, in which open and effective communication among oncologists, pharmacists, and integrative physicians on the use of herbal medicine by their patients occurs. This collaboration provides patients with a nonjudgmental and multidisciplinary approach to integrative medicine, echoing their own health-belief models of care during conventional cancer treatments. The role of the integrative physician is to facilitate this process, working with oncologists and pharmacists in the fostering of patient-centered palliative care, while ensuring a safe and effective treatment environment. Case scenario: W. is a 56 year old female artist who was recently diagnosed with localized hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Following lumpectomy and sentinel node dissection, she is scheduled to begin adjuvant chemotherapy with a regimen which will include adriamycin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel (AC-T protocol). She is worried about developing peripheral neuropathy and its impact on her ability to paint, and she asks about a number of dietary supplements which she heard could prevent this from happening: omega-3, vitamin E, alpha-lipoic acid, and acetyl-l-carnithine. She is concerned, however, that the supplements may negatively interact with her chemotherapy regimen.

Characterizing patient-oncologist communication in genomic tumor testing: The 21-gene recurrence score as an exemplar

ObjectiveWomen with early-stage, ER + breast cancer are recommend to receive genomic profiling tests, such as the 21-gene Recurrence Score (RS) test, to guide treatment decisions. We examined test- and treatment-related information discussed and the associations between RS categories and aspects of communication during patient-oncologist clinical encounters. MethodsAs part of a larger trial, clinical encounters (N = 46) were audiorecorded and coded for 1) RS- and treatment-related information, 2) shared decision making, 3) patient active participation, and 4) oncologist patient-centered communication. We examined differences by RS category using mixed models, adjusting for nesting within oncologist. ResultsPatients with a high RS were more likely to receive a chemotherapy recommendation (p < .01), hear about the risks/side effects of chemotherapy (p < .01), and offer their preferences (p = .02) than those with intermediate or low RS. Elements of shared decision making increased with RS. Oncologist patient-centered communication (M = 4.09/5, SD = .25) and patient active participation (M = 3.5/4, SD = 1.0) were high across RS. ConclusionFindings suggest that disease severity, rather than clinical uncertainty, impact treatment recommendations and shared decision making. Practice implicationsOncologists adjust test- and treatment-related information and shared decision making by disease severity. This information provides a framework to inform decision making in complex cancer and genomics settings.

Patient-Oncologist Communication Regarding Oral Chemotherapy During Routine Office Visits.

PURPOSE:Although studies in other clinical areas have shown that patient-clinician communication can positively influence adherence to medications, little is known about how oncologists address medication counseling during routine office visits. We describe patient-oncologist office-based discussions of oral chemotherapy treatment.METHODS:Transcripts of 24 patient-oncologist office visits were obtained from a national database. Patients were aged ≥ 19 years and prescribed capecitabine for colorectal cancer. We developed a structured coding worksheet using medication-counseling concepts previously identified as important to medication adherence and a grounded approach. Two coders reviewed transcripts for oncologists’ provision of medication information, assessment of patients’ adherence to medication, and the provision of self-management support for management of adverse effects. We assessed interrater reliability with Cohen κ statistics. We describe the counseling concepts present within patient-oncologist conversations and present illustrative quotes to describe how they were discussed.RESULTS:Oncologists generally provided patients who had yet to initiate therapy comprehensive medication information; those in the midst of treatment received less information. Oncologists discussed patients’ continued use of the medication (or discontinuation) among all patients who had initiated therapy (N = 18). How the patient was taking the medication (ie, therapy implementation) was less commonly discussed. Medication adverse effects were also discussed in all encounters. Self-management strategies were commonly provided, albeit mostly in response to a presenting symptom and not preemptively. Patients’ use of concurrent medications, financial access to therapy, and assessments of logistical arrangements were discussed more sporadically.CONCLUSION:Using audio recordings from a national sample of patient-oncologist office visits, we identified several potentially important opportunities to enhance medication counseling among patients prescribed capecitabine for the treatment of colorectal cancer.

Prognostic understanding in hematologic malignancies: A multicenter longitudinal study.

11524 Background: Accurate prognostic understanding facilitates the receipt of goal-concordant medical care. Few studies have evaluated prognostic understanding in patients with hematologic malignancies. In this secondary analysis of a multicenter, longitudinal study of patients with hematologic malignancies referred for a second opinion hematology subspecialty consultation, we assessed changes in prognostic understanding after consultation, and predictors of post-consultation patient-oncologist prognostic discordance. Methods: Patients were recruited from 4 academic centers. Before and 1-7 days after consultation, patients were asked about their perceived chance of cure (options &lt; 10%, 10-19%, and up to 90-100% in 10% increments, and “do not wish to answer”). Oncologists were asked the same question after consultation. Discordance was defined as a difference in response by 2 levels in the patient-oncologist dyads. We used multivariate analysis to assess the demographic and clinical predictors of patient-oncologist discordance. Results: We included 216 patients (median age 55 years, range 22-79) and 46 oncologists (47, 30-70). Overall, ≥On multivariate analysis, discordance before consultation [Odds Ratio (OR) 6.05, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.96-12.36) and &lt; college education (vs. post-graduate education; OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.09-5.14) were associated with discordance after consultation. Other patient demographics, comorbidity, cancer type, psychological distress, social support, decision-making preference, and coping strategies were not associated with discordance. Conclusions: Patient-oncologist concordance in prognostic understanding improved after subspecialty consultation, but over half of patients’ views of their prognosis remained discordant with those of their oncologists. Interventions to improve patient-oncologist communication about prognosis are needed, especially in patients with lower education level.

Oncologist recommendation matters!-Predictors of psycho-oncological service uptake in oncology outpatients.

Highly distressed cancer patients often do not use psycho-oncological services (POS). Research on predictors of POS uptake has mainly focused on patient-related variables and less on communication variables, so we examined the link between patient-oncologist communication (ie, talking about psychosocial distress, providing detailed information, and recommending POS) and POS uptake. We conducted a prospective, observational study in an Oncology Outpatient Clinic in Switzerland. Predictors (ie, patient-related variables and patient's reports of the patient-oncologist communication) were assessed via semistructured interviews, and information on outpatient POS uptake was assessed after 4 months. For statistical analysis, a multivariate logistic regression was performed. Of 333 participants (mean age 61years; 55% male; 54% distress thermometer ≥5), 77 (23%) had used POS during a 4-month period. Patients who reported an oncologist-recommended POS (odds ratio [OR]=6.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]=3.14-12.85) and those who were not sure if they had received a recommendation (OR=4.64, 95% CI=1.83-11.97) were more likely to attend POS than those who reported receiving no recommendation. Talking about psychosocial distress (OR=0.74, 95% CI=0.38-1.46) and providing detailed information about POS did not predict POS uptake (OR=1.06, 95% CI=0.46-2.38). Oncologists' expert recommendations to attend POS were strongly associated with patients' uptake of POS. The central role played by oncologists should be accounted for in stepped psycho-oncological care when POS referral pathways are defined.

Multilevel Influences on Patient-Oncologist Communication about Genomic Test Results: Oncologist Perspectives

Thousands of women with early-stage breast cancer receive gene-expression profile (GEP) tests to guide chemotherapy decisions. However, many patients report a poor understanding of how their test results inform treatment decision-making. We applied models of patient-centered communication and informed decision-making to assess which variables oncologists’ perceive as most influential to effective communication with their patients about GEP results and intervention modalities and approaches that could support more effective conversations about treatment decisions in routine clinical care. Medical oncologists who were part of a practice group in the mid-Atlantic US completed an online, cross-sectional survey in 2016. These data were merged with de-identified electronic patient and practice data. Of the 83 oncologists contacted, 29 completed the survey (35% response rate, representing 52% of the test-eligible patients in the practice network). There were no significant differences between survey responders and nonresponders. Oncologists reported patient-related variables as most influential, including performance status (65.5%), pretesting preferences for chemotherapy (55.2%), and comprehension of complex test results (55.2%). Oncologists endorsed their experience with testing (58.6%) and their own confidence in using the test results (48.3%) as influential as well. They indicated that a clinical decision support tool incorporating patient comorbidities, age, and potential benefits from chemotherapy would support their own practice and that they could share these results and other means of communication support using print materials (79.3%) with their patients in clinic (72.4%). These preferred intervention characteristics could be integrated into routine care, ultimately facilitating more effective communication about genomic testing (such as GEP) and its role in treatment selection.

Patient-Oncologist Communication: Sharing Decisions in Cancer Care.

Patient-Oncologist Communication: Sharing Decisions in Cancer Care.

Development of a patient question prompt list to improve communication and clinical trial enrollment in a diverse patient population.

143 Background: Few patients, especially racial/ethnic minorities, enroll in clinical trials (CT), in part due to patient-oncologist communication. Question prompt lists (QPLs) improve communication, but have not been tested in CT discussions in a diverse patient population. We describe the development and acceptability of a theory-based QPL to improve communication and enrollment of White and Black men in prostate cancer CTs. Methods: Two existing QPLs were adapted by a team of communication scientists, psychologists, clinicians and patients. Guiding theories were the common ingroup identity model, which suggests people from different social groups can better achieve goals when they are on the same team, and patient-centered communication, which suggests that patient active participation improves clinical communication. The revised QPL included text to encourage patients to see themselves and their oncologist as a team, and 33 questions about CTs to encourage patients to participate actively in clinical interactions that include a CT discussion. To test acceptability, we recruited 15 Black or White men currently enrolled in a prostate cancer CT at an urban comprehensive cancer center. We asked patients to provide feedback on the QPL, to endorse which questions were most important, and for suggested improvements. Results: Patients participated anonymously. All patients said the QPL would be useful. Four patients reported liking the graphics/layout. Six patients reported liking the team text, but one commented that it was unnecessary. Three patients liked that the QPL included many questions, several of which they had not thought to ask when they discussed a CT with their oncologist. Ten patients endorsed the questions they thought were important to ask (M = 24 questions, SD = 9). The most frequently endorsed questions were what is already known about this treatment and how serious are the side effects? Conclusions: Patients found the QPL to be acceptable and useful. The QPL was revised according to patient feedback. We are testing the revised QPL's influence on patient-oncologist communication about CTs, patient understanding of CTs offered, and patient decisions to enroll in a CT.

Use of Alternative and Complementary Medicine in Patients with Malignant Diseases in High-Volume Cancer Center and Future Aspects

Usage of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is steadily increasing over the last decades, gaining medical, economic and sociological importance. The aim of the present study was to assess the use of complementary and alternative therapies in cancer patients. A cross-sectional, descriptive survey design was used to collect data through an anonymous questionnaire. A total of 267 patients were included in the study. The prevalence of CAM use among cancer patients in this study was 60.3%. It was found that 61 heterogeneous CAM therapies were used, the most popular among patients being naturopathy/folk medicine. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, independent predictors of CAM use were high income, divorced status, female sex and younger age. In conclusion, considering the fact that a large proportion of patients used at least one CAM approach, we need to continue our efforts to improve the patient-oncologist communication in order to deliver most reliable information to patients and to better understand the possible standard medicine-CAM interactions. According to results of the latest studies, CAM therapies that help manage pain, nausea, fatigue, anxiety, and other symptoms should be integrated into the patient overall care.

Closing the Patient–Oncologist Communication Gap: A Review of Historic and Current Efforts

Effective communication is essential in developing any relationship--this is particularly true between oncologists and their patients. The patient-oncologist relationship is one of the most delicate in medicine, and given the strong emotions associated with cancer, successful communication plays a paramount role in the wellbeing of patients and oncologists. Significant advances to close the communication gap have occurred over the past several decades, largely by addressing deficiencies in the various stages of an oncologist's lengthy training: undergraduate medical education, residency and fellowship, and continuing medical education. Stemming from several milestones achieved by highly motivated groups of individuals, including the creation of consensus statements and guidelines by communication education experts, progress has been made to improve patient-oncologist communication. This progress is marked by the development of evidence-based communication skills training programs, such as Oncotalk and Comskil, in addition to the creation of distant-learning modalities, such as the Studying Communication in Oncologist-Patient Encounters trial. This review article outlines the history of communication education during medical education and training, and brings to light more recent efforts to promote competent, communication-minded physicians necessary for effective cancer care.

Complementary and Integrative Oncology in the Cross-Cultural Region of the Middle East and South Asia

Complementary and Integrative Oncology in the Cross-Cultural Region of the Middle East and South Asia

Negative emotions in cancer care: Do oncologists’ responses depend on severity and type of emotion?

Objective To examine how type and severity of patients’ negative emotions influence oncologists’ responses and subsequent conversations. Methods We analyzed 264 audio-recorded conversations between advanced cancer patients and their oncologists. Conversations were coded for patients’ expressions of negative emotion, which were categorized by type of emotion and severity. Oncologists’ responses were coded as using either empathic language or blocking and distancing approaches. Results Patients presented fear more often than anger or sadness; severity of disclosures was most often moderate. Oncologists responded to 35% of these negative emotional disclosures with empathic language. They were most empathic when patients presented intense emotions. Responding empathically to patients’ emotional disclosures lengthened discussions by an average of only 21 s. Conclusion Greater response rates to severe emotions suggest oncologists may recognize negative emotions better when patients express them more intensely. Oncologists were least responsive to patient fear and responded with greatest empathy to sadness. Practice implications Oncologists may benefit from additional training to recognize negative emotions, even when displayed without intensity. Teaching cancer patients to better articulate their emotional concerns may also enhance patient–oncologist communication.

Patient–oncologist communication in advanced cancer: predictors of patient perception of prognosis

Advanced cancer patients' perceptions of prognosis, which are often overly optimistic compared to oncologist estimates, influence treatment preferences. The predictors of patients' perceptions and the effect of oncologist communication on patient understanding are unclear. This study was designed to identify the communication factors that influence patient-oncologist concordance about chance of cure. We analyzed audiorecorded encounters between 51 oncologists and 141 advanced cancer patients with good (n = 69) or poor (n = 72) concordance about chance of cure. Encounters were coded for communication factors that might influence oncologist-patient concordance, including oncologist statements of optimism and pessimism. Oncologists made more statements of optimism (mean = 3.3 per encounter) than statements of pessimism (mean = 1.2 per encounter). When oncologists made at least one statement of pessimism, patients were more likely to agree with their oncologist's estimated chance of cure (OR = 2.59, 95%CI = 1.31-5.12). Statements of optimism and uncertainty were not associated with an increased likelihood that patients would agree or disagree with their oncologists about chance of cure. Communication of pessimistic information to patients with advanced cancer increases the likelihood that patients will report concordant prognostic estimates. Communication of optimistic information does not have any direct effect. The best communication strategy to maximize patient knowledge for informed decision making while remaining sensitive to patients' emotional needs may be to emphasize optimistic aspects of prognosis while also consciously and clearly communicating pessimistic aspects of prognosis.

Doctor-patient communication patterns in breast cancer adjuvant therapy discussions.

OBJECTIVE: To identify variables within the patient-oncologist communication pattern that impact overall patient comprehension and satisfaction within the breast cancer adjuvant therapy (AT) setting. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Fifty patients were recruited from a number of academic and community-based oncology practices. Fifteen oncologists participated. MAIN VARIABLES: Three communication variables were identified: percentage of total utterances spoken by the patient, percentage of total physician utterances that were coded as affective (i.e. emotional), and total number of questions asked by the patient during the consultation. Knowledge and satisfaction were assessed by a variety of outcome measures, including knowledge items and satisfaction as measured by VASs, the satisfaction with decision scale and the decisional conflict scale. RESULTS: The level of patient knowledge about breast cancer and satisfaction with the clinical encounter showed a tendency to correlate with the variables measuring aspects of patient-physician communication style. Patients who spoke more or asked more questions tended to be more knowledgeable whilst patients whose physicians used more affective language tended to know less but to be more satisfied with their clinical encounter. CONCLUSIONS: In order to optimize patients' degree of comprehension and satisfaction with their breast cancer adjuvant therapy, physicians need to increase their affective participation in clinical encounters whilst encouraging patients to ask questions and to actively participate in the decision-making process.