Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 9/2010

01-09-2010 | Original Article

Second medical opinions: the views of oncology patients and their physicians

Authors: Jennifer Philip, Michelle Gold, Max Schwarz, Paul Komesaroff

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 9/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Second medical opinions (SMOs) are common in oncology practice, but the nature of these consultations has received relatively little attention. This study examines the views of patients with advanced cancer and their physicians of SMOs.

Method

Parallel, concurrent surveys were developed for patients and physicians. The first was distributed to outpatients with advanced cancer-attending specialist clinics in an Australian quaternary hospital. The second survey, developed on the basis of results of exploratory interviews with medical oncologists, was distributed to medical oncologists in Australia.

Results

Seventeen of fifty two (33%) patients had sought a SMO, most commonly prompted by concerns around communication with their first doctor, the extreme and desperate nature of their medical condition and the need for reassurance. Most (94%) patients found the SMO helpful, with satisfaction related to improved communication and reassurance. Patients were concerned that seeking a second medical opinion may affect their relationship with their primary doctor. Most physicians (82%) reported seeing between one and five SMO per month, with patients being motivated by the need for additional information and reassurance. Physicians regarded SMO patients as having greater information needs (84%), greater psychosocial needs (58%) and requiring more of the physician's time and energy (77%) than other patients.

Conclusion

SMOs are common in cancer care with most patients motivated by the need for improved communication, additional information and reassurance. Physicians identify patients who seek SMOs as having additional psychosocial needs compared with other oncology patients.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Tam KF, Cheng DK, Ng TY, Ngan HY (2007) The behaviours of seeking a second opinion from other health-care professionals and the utilization of complementary and alternative medicine in gynaecologic cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 13(9):679–684CrossRef Tam KF, Cheng DK, Ng TY, Ngan HY (2007) The behaviours of seeking a second opinion from other health-care professionals and the utilization of complementary and alternative medicine in gynaecologic cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 13(9):679–684CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Sutherland LR et al (1989) Patients who seek a second opinion; are they different? J Clin Gastroenterol 11(3):308–313CrossRefPubMed Sutherland LR et al (1989) Patients who seek a second opinion; are they different? J Clin Gastroenterol 11(3):308–313CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Sutherland LR, Verhoef MJ (1994) Why do patients seek a second opinion or alternative medicine? J Clin Gastroenterol 19(3):194–197CrossRefPubMed Sutherland LR, Verhoef MJ (1994) Why do patients seek a second opinion or alternative medicine? J Clin Gastroenterol 19(3):194–197CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Van Dalen I (2001) Motives for seeking a second opinion in orthopedic surgery. J Health Serv Res Policy 4:195CrossRef Van Dalen I (2001) Motives for seeking a second opinion in orthopedic surgery. J Health Serv Res Policy 4:195CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Tattersall MHN. Second opinions in oncology: an analysis of 40 opinion consultations from a bank of 165 audio-taped consultations with 4 medical or radiation oncologists, Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Conference Proceedings: 2005 Tattersall MHN. Second opinions in oncology: an analysis of 40 opinion consultations from a bank of 165 audio-taped consultations with 4 medical or radiation oncologists, Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Conference Proceedings: 2005
7.
go back to reference Roberge D et al (2001) Loyalty to the regular care provider: patients and physicians' views. Fam Pract 18(1):53–59CrossRefPubMed Roberge D et al (2001) Loyalty to the regular care provider: patients and physicians' views. Fam Pract 18(1):53–59CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Philip J, Gold M, Schwarz M, Komesaroff P (2009) Patients' views of decision-making in advanced cancer. Palliat Support Care 7:181–185CrossRefPubMed Philip J, Gold M, Schwarz M, Komesaroff P (2009) Patients' views of decision-making in advanced cancer. Palliat Support Care 7:181–185CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Butler L, Degner LF et al (2005) Developing communication competency in the context of cancer: a critical interpretive analysis of provider training programs. Psycho-Oncology 14(10):861–872CrossRefPubMed Butler L, Degner LF et al (2005) Developing communication competency in the context of cancer: a critical interpretive analysis of provider training programs. Psycho-Oncology 14(10):861–872CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Dunn SM, Butow P, Tattersall MHN (1993) General information tapes inhibit recall of the cancer consultation. J Clin Oncol 11:2279–2285PubMed Dunn SM, Butow P, Tattersall MHN (1993) General information tapes inhibit recall of the cancer consultation. J Clin Oncol 11:2279–2285PubMed
11.
go back to reference Frost MH, Arvizu RD, Jayakumer S, Schoonover A, Novotny P, Zahashy K (1999) A multidisciplinary health care delivery model for women with breast cancer: patient satisfaction and physical and psychosocial adjustment. Oncol Nurs Forum 26(10):1673–1680PubMed Frost MH, Arvizu RD, Jayakumer S, Schoonover A, Novotny P, Zahashy K (1999) A multidisciplinary health care delivery model for women with breast cancer: patient satisfaction and physical and psychosocial adjustment. Oncol Nurs Forum 26(10):1673–1680PubMed
12.
go back to reference Gabel M, Hilton NE, Nathanson SD (1997) Multidisciplinary breast cancer clinics. Do they work? Cancer 79(12):2380–2384CrossRefPubMed Gabel M, Hilton NE, Nathanson SD (1997) Multidisciplinary breast cancer clinics. Do they work? Cancer 79(12):2380–2384CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Walker MS, Ristvedt ST, Haughey BH (2003) Patient care in multidisciplinary cancer clinics: does attention to psychosocial needs predict patient satisfaction? Psychooncology 12(3):291–300CrossRefPubMed Walker MS, Ristvedt ST, Haughey BH (2003) Patient care in multidisciplinary cancer clinics: does attention to psychosocial needs predict patient satisfaction? Psychooncology 12(3):291–300CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Dy GK, Bekele L, Hanson LJ, Furth A, Mandrekar S, Sloan JA et al (2004) Complementary and alternative medicine use by patients enrolled onto phase 1 clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 22(23):4810–4815CrossRefPubMed Dy GK, Bekele L, Hanson LJ, Furth A, Mandrekar S, Sloan JA et al (2004) Complementary and alternative medicine use by patients enrolled onto phase 1 clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 22(23):4810–4815CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Goldman RE, Sullivan A, Back AL, Alexander SC, Matsuyama RK, Lee SJ (2009) Patients' reflections on communication in the second-opinion hematology-oncology consultation. Patient Educ Couns 76:44–50CrossRefPubMed Goldman RE, Sullivan A, Back AL, Alexander SC, Matsuyama RK, Lee SJ (2009) Patients' reflections on communication in the second-opinion hematology-oncology consultation. Patient Educ Couns 76:44–50CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Second medical opinions: the views of oncology patients and their physicians
Authors
Jennifer Philip
Michelle Gold
Max Schwarz
Paul Komesaroff
Publication date
01-09-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 9/2010
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-009-0742-z

Other articles of this Issue 9/2010

Supportive Care in Cancer 9/2010 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

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