Top

Published in:

01-08-2011 | Original Article

Identifying and predicting subgroups of information needs among cancer patients: an initial study using latent class analysis

Authors: Melanie Neumann, Markus Wirtz, Nicole Ernstmann, Oliver Ommen, Alfred Längler, Friedrich Edelhäuser, Christian Scheffer, Diethard Tauschel, Holger Pfaff

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 8/2011

Abstract

Purpose

Understanding how the information needs of cancer patients (CaPts) vary is important because met information needs affect health outcomes and CaPts’ satisfaction. The goals of the study were to identify subgroups of CaPts based on self-reported cancer- and treatment-related information needs and to determine whether subgroups could be predicted on the basis of selected sociodemographic, clinical and clinician–patient relationship variables.

Methods

Three hundred twenty-three CaPts participated in a survey using the “Cancer Patients Information Needs” scale, which is a new tool for measuring cancer-related information needs. The number of information need subgroups and need profiles within each subgroup was identified using latent class analysis (LCA). Multinomial logistic regression was applied to predict class membership.

Results

LCA identified a model of five subgroups exhibiting differences in type and extent of CaPts’ unmet information needs: a subgroup with “no unmet needs” (31.4% of the sample), two subgroups with “high level of psychosocial unmet information needs” (27.0% and 12.0%), a subgroup with “high level of purely medical unmet information needs” (16.0%) and a subgroup with “high level of medical and psychosocial unmet information needs” (13.6%). An assessment of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics revealed that younger CaPts and CaPts’ requiring psychological support seem to belong to subgroups with a higher level of unmet information needs. However, the most significant predictor for the subgroups with unmet information needs is a good clinician–patient relationship, i.e. subjective perception of high level of trust in and caring attention from nurses together with high degree of physician empathy seems to be predictive for inclusion in the subgroup with no unmet information needs.

Conclusions

The results of our study can be used by oncology nurses and physicians to increase their awareness of the complexity and heterogeneity of information needs among CaPts and of clinically significant subgroups of CaPts. Moreover, regression analyses indicate the following association: Nurses and physicians seem to be able to reduce CaPts’ unmet information needs by establishing a relationship with the patient, which is trusting, caring and empathic.

Available only for authorised users

ASCO (2006) ASCO-ESMO consensus statement on quality cancer care. Am J Clin Oncol 24:3498–3499CrossRef

Epstein RM, Street RL (2007) Patient-centred communication in cancer care. Promoting healing and reducing suffering. National Cancer Institute. NIH Publication No. 07-6225. Bethesda, MD

Sheer V, Cline R (1995) Testing a model of perceived information adequacy and uncertainty reduction in physician–patient interactions. J Appl Commun Res 23:44–59CrossRef

Street R (1991) Information-giving in medical consultations: the influence of patients’ communicative styles and personal characteristics. Soc Sci Med 32:541–548PubMedCrossRef

Fallowfield L, Jenkins V (1999) Effective communication skills are the key to good cancer care. Eur J Cancer Care 35:1592–1597

Kim SS, Kaplowitz S, Johnston MV (2004) The effects of physician empathy on patient satisfaction and compliance. Eval Health Prof 27:237–251PubMedCrossRef

Neumann M, Wirtz M, Bollschweiler E et al (2007) Determinants and patient-reported long-term outcomes of physician empathy in oncology: a structural equation modelling approach. Patient Educ Couns 69:63–75PubMedCrossRef

Arora N, Johnson P, Gustafson D, McTavish F, Hawkins R, Pingree S (2002) Barriers to information access, perceived health competence, and psychosocial health outcomes: test of a mediation model in a breast cancer sample. Patient Educ Couns 47:37–46PubMedCrossRef

Thorne SE, Bultz BD, Baile W (2005) Is there a cost to poor communication in cancer care? A critical review of the literature. Psychooncology 14:875–884PubMedCrossRef

10.

Chaitchik S, Kreitler S, Shaked S, Schwart I, Rosin R (1992) Doctor–patient communication in a cancer ward. J Cancer Educ 7:41–54PubMedCrossRef

11.

Gattellari M, Butow PN, Tattersall MH (2001) Sharing decisions in cancer care. Soc Sci Med 52:1865–1878PubMedCrossRef

12.

Chan A, Woddruff R (1997) Communication with patients with advanced cancer. J Palliat Care 13:29–33PubMed

13.

Quirt C, Macillop W, Ginsburg A et al (1997) Do doctors know when their patients don’t? A survey of doctor–patient communication in lung cancer. Lung Cancer 18:1–10PubMedCrossRef

14.

Arora NK (2003) Interacting with cancer patients: the significance of physicians’ communication behavior. Soc Sci Med 57:791–806PubMedCrossRef

15.

Hain T (2000) The role of health professionals in informing cancer patients: findings from The Teamwork Project (phase one). Health Expect 3:217–219CrossRef

16.

Mesters I, van den Borne B, De Boer M, Pruyn J (2001) Measuring information among cancer patients. Patient Educ Couns 43:253–262PubMedCrossRef

17.

Dillman DA (1978) Mail and telephone surveys. The total design method. Wiley, New York

18.

Dillman DA (2000) Mail and internet surveys. Wiley, New York

19.

Ommen O, Janssen C, Neugebauer E, Bouillon B, Rehm K, Rangger C, Erli H, Pfaff H (2008) Trust, social support and patient type—associations between patients perceived trust, supportive communication and patients preferences in regard to paternalism, clarification and participation of severely injured patients. Patient Educ Couns 73:196–204PubMedCrossRef

20.

Pfaff H (2003) Der Kölner Patientenfragebogen: Theoretischer Rahmen, Konstrukte und Messinstrumente./The Cologne Patient Questionnaire: theory, constructs and measures. In: Pfaff H, Freise D, Mager G, Schrappe M (eds) Der Kölner Patientenfragebogen (KPF): Entwicklung und Validierung eines Fragebogens zur Erfassung der Einbindung des Patienten als Kotherapeuten./The Cologne Patient Questionnaire (CPQ): development and validation of a questionnaire to assess the patient as a co-therapist. Asgard, Sankt Augustin, pp 7–27

21.

Pfaff H, Steffen P, Brinkmann A, Lütticke J, Nitzsche A (2004) Der Kölner Patientenfragebogen (KPF). Kennzahlenhandbuch./The Cologne Patient Questionnaire (CPQ). Handbook of indices. Veröffentlichungsreihe der Abteilung Medizinische Soziologie des Instituts für Arbeitsmedizin, Sozialmedizin und Sozialhygiene der Universität zu Köln: ISSN 1618-7067

22.

Neumann M, Wirtz M, Bollschweiler E, Warm M, Wolf J, Pfaff H (2008) Psychometrische Evaluation der deutschen Version des Messinstruments “Consultation and Relational Empathy” (CARE) am Beispiel von Krebspatienten./Psychometric evaluation of the German version of the “Consultation and Relational Empathy” (CARE) at the example of cancer patients. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 58:5–15PubMedCrossRef

23.

Mercer SW, Maxwell M, Heaney D, Watt GC (2004) The Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) measure: development and preliminary validation and reliability of an empathy-based consultation process measure. Fam Prac 21:1–6CrossRef

24.

Mercer SW, McConnachie A, Maxwell M, Heaney D, Watt GC (2005) Relevance and practical use of the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) measure in general practice. Fam Prac 22:328–334CrossRef

25.

Mercer SW, Neumann M, Wirtz M, Fitzpatrick B, Vojt G (2008) General practitioner empathy, patient enablement, and patient-reported outcomes in primary care in an area of high socio-economic deprivation in Scotland: a pilot prospective study using structural equation modelling. Patient Educ Couns 73:240–245PubMedCrossRef

26.

Allison PD (2001) Missing data. Sage, Thousand Oaks

27.

Schafer JL, Graham JW (2002) Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol Meth 7:147–177CrossRef

28.

Graham JW, Cumsille PE, Elek-Fisk E (2003) Methods for handling missing data. In: Schinka JA, Velicer WF (eds) Research methods in psychology. Wiley, New York, pp 87–114

29.

Clogg CC (1995) Latent class models. In: Arminger G, Clogg CC, Sobel ME (eds) Handbook of statistical modeling for the social and behavioural sciences. Plenum, New York, pp 311–359

30.

Hagenaars JA, McCutcheon AL (2002) Applied latent class analysis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef

31.

Lazarsfeld PF (1950) The logical and mathematical foundation of latent structure analysis. In: Stouffer S (ed) Measurement and prediction. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 362–412

32.

McCutcheon AL (1987) Latent class analysis. Sage, Newbury Park

33.

Muthen B, Muthen LK (2000) Integrating person-centered and variable-centered analyses: growth mixture modeling with latent trajectory classes. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 24:882–891PubMedCrossRef

34.

Hambleton R, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ (1991) Fundamentals of item response theory. Sage, Newbury Park

35.

Vermunt JK, Magidson J (2005) Latent Gold 4.0 user’s guide. Statistical Innovations, Belmont

36.

Vermunt JK, Magidson J (2002) Latent class cluster analysis. In: Hagenaars JA, McCutcheon AL (eds) Applied latent class analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 89–107CrossRef

37.

Neumann M, Galushko M, Goldblatt H, Visser A, Wirtz M, Karbach U, Ernstmann N, Ommen O, Pfaff H (2009) Barriers to use psycho-oncological services an exploration of perspectives by users, their relatives, non-users, physicians, and nurses. Support Care Cancer. doi:10.1007/s00520-009-0731-2

38.

Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (2006) Multivariate data analysis. Upper Prentice Hall, Saddle River

39.

Mittag O, Böhmer S, Deck R et al (2003) Fragen über Fragen: cognitive survey in der Fragebogenentwicklung./One question after the other: cognitive survey in the development of questionnaires. Soz Praventivmed 48:55–64PubMed

40.

Longo DR (2005) Understanding health information, communication, and information seeking of patients and consumers: a comprehensive and integrated model. Health Expect 8:189–194PubMedCrossRef

41.

Schofield NG, Green C, Creed F (2008) Communication skills of health-care professionals working in oncology—can they be improved? Eur J Oncol Nurs 12:4–13PubMedCrossRef

42.

Brown R, Butow PN, Boyer MJ, Tattersall MHN (1999) Promoting patient participation in the cancer consultation: evaluation of a prompt sheet and coaching in question asking. Br J Cancer 80:242–248PubMedCrossRef

43.

Clayton J, Butow PN, Tattersall MHN, Devine RJ, Simpson JM, Aggarwal G, Clark KJ, Currow DC, Elliott LM, Lacey J, Lee PG, Noel MA (2007) Randomized controlled trial of a prompt list to help advanced cancer patients and their caregivers to ask questions about prognosis and end-of-life care. J Clin Oncol 25:715–723PubMedCrossRef

44.

Kruijver IPM, Garssen B, Visser AP, Kuiper AJ (2006) Signalising psychosocial problems in cancer care. The structural use of a short psychosocial checklist during medical or nursing visits. Patient Educ Couns 62:163–177PubMedCrossRef

45.

Parker PA, Davison BJ, Tishelman C, Brundage MD (2005) What do we know about facilitating patient communication in the cancer care setting? Psycho-Oncol 14:848–858CrossRef

46.

Sepucha KR, Belkora JK, Mutchnik S, Esserman LJ (2002) Consultation planning to help breast cancer patients prepare for medical consultations: effect on communication and satisfaction for patients and physicians. J Clin Oncol 20:2695–2700PubMedCrossRef

47.

van Wersch A, de Boer MF, van der Does E, de Jong P, Knegt P, Meeuwis CA, Stringer P, Pruyn JFA (1997) Continuity of information in cancer care: evaluation of a logbook. Patient Educ Couns 31:223–236PubMedCrossRef

Title: Identifying and predicting subgroups of information needs among cancer patients: an initial study using latent class analysis
Authors: Melanie Neumann
Markus Wirtz
Nicole Ernstmann
Oliver Ommen
Alfred Längler
Friedrich Edelhäuser
Christian Scheffer
Diethard Tauschel
Holger Pfaff
Publication date: 01-08-2011
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 8/2011
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-010-0939-1

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2011

Activism among exceptional patients with cancer

Palonosetron in combination with 1-day versus 3-day dexamethasone for prevention of nausea and vomiting following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial

Decisions for lung cancer chemotherapy: the influence of physician and patient factors

A survey of Internet utilization among patients with cancer

Current microbiology of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube (PEG tube) insertion site infections in patients with cancer

Association of HSV reactivation and pro-inflammatory cytokine levels with the severity of stomatitis after BEAM chemotherapy and autologous SCT

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer