Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Supportive Care in Cancer
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 10/2018

01-10-2018 | Original Article

Patterns of interactions among patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, their caregivers, and healthcare providers during symptom discussions

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 10/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Effective symptom discussion is an essential step to enhance symptom management in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). However, little is known about how these patients communicate their symptoms during health encounters. The purpose of this study was to develop a typology to describe patterns of interactions between patients with APC, their caregivers, and healthcare providers as regards to symptoms and symptom management.

Methods

Thematic analysis was used to analyze 37 transcripts of audio-recorded, naturally occurring encounters among APC patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers. Transcripts were drawn from the Values and Options in Cancer Care study, a larger randomized controlled communication and decision-making intervention trial, which recruited advanced cancer patients and caregivers across the USA. All transcripts from APC patients that were pre-intervention were analyzed.

Results

Eight unique types of interaction patterns among patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers were identified as follows: collaborative interactions, explanatory interactions, agentic interactions, checklist interactions, cross-purpose interactions, empathic interactions, admonishing interactions, and diverging interactions.

Conclusions

Our findings provide a systematic description of a variety of types of interaction patterns regarding symptom discussion among APC patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers. These typologies can be used to facilitate effective communication and symptom management.
Literature
1.
Tang C, Von Ah D, Fulton J (2018) The symptom experience of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: an integrative review. Cancer Nurs 41(1):33–44
2.
Gooden H, White K (2013) Pancreatic cancer and supportive care—pancreatic exocrine insufficiency negatively impacts on quality of life. Support Care Cancer 21(7):1835–1841CrossRefPubMed
3.
Labori KJ, Hjermstad MJ, Wester T, Buanes T, Loge JH (2006) Symptom profiles and palliative care in advanced pancreatic cancer: a prospective study. Support Care Cancer 14(11):1126–1133CrossRefPubMed
4.
Muller-Nordhorn J, Roll S, Bohmig M et al (2006) Health-related quality of life in patients with pancreatic cancer. Digestion 74(2):118–125CrossRefPubMed
5.
Tang C, Shields CG, Von Ah D (2016, Sep) How did advanced pancreatic cancer patients and caregivers communicate their needs: a pilot study. Paper presented to the Sigma Theta Tau International Leadership Connection, Indianapolis
6.
Grant MS, Wiegand DL (2013) Conversations with strangers: the needs of those accessing a palliative care nurse practitioner on a pancreatic cancer web site. J Hospice Palliat Nurs 15(5):278–285CrossRef
7.
Epstein RM, Street RL (2007) Patient-centered communication in cancer care: promoting healing and reducing suffering. National Cancer Institute, US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda
8.
Scheunemann LP, McDevitt M, Carson SS, Randomized HLC (2011) Controlled trials of interventions to improve communication in intensive care: a systematic review. CHEST Journal 139(3):543–554CrossRef
9.
Thorne SE, Bultz BD, Baile WF (2005) Is there a cost to poor communication in cancer care?: a critical review of the literature. Psycho-Oncology 14(10):875–884CrossRefPubMed
10.
Wright KB, Sparks L, O'hair HD (2012) Health Communication in the 21st Century. Wiley, Hoboken
11.
Bodie GD, MacGeorge EL (2014) Supportive communication theories: dual-process theory of supportive message outcomes and advice response theory. In: Baxter LA, Braithwaite DO (eds) Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: multiple perspectives. Sage, Los Angeles
12.
Donovan HS, Hartenbach EM, Method MW (2005) Patient–provider communication and perceived control for women experiencing multiple symptoms associated with ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 99(2):404–411CrossRefPubMed
13.
Sakai EY, Carpenter BD (2011) Linguistic features of power dynamics in triadic dementia diagnostic conversations. Patient Educ Couns 85(2):295–298CrossRefPubMed
14.
Laws MB, Beach MC, Lee Y, Rogers WH, Saha S, Korthuis PT, Sharp V, Wilson IB (2013) Provider-patient adherence dialogue in HIV care: results of a multisite study. AIDS Behav 17(1):148–159CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Mast MS, Hall JA, Roter DL (2008) Caring and dominance affect participants’ perceptions and behaviors during a virtual medical visit. J Gen Intern Med 23(5):523–527CrossRef
16.
Berry DL, Wilkie DJ, Thomas M Jr, Charles R, Fortner P (2003) Clinicians communicating with patients experiencing cancer pain: ORIGINAL ARTICLE. Cancer Investig 21(3):374–381CrossRef
17.
Coward DD, Wilkie DJ (2000) Metastatic bone pain: meanings associated with self-report and self-management decision making. Cancer Nurs 23(2):101–108CrossRefPubMed
18.
Kimberlin C, Brushwood D, Allen W, Radson E, Wilson D (2004) Cancer patient and caregiver experiences: communication and pain management issues. J Pain Symptom Manag 28(6):566–578CrossRef
19.
Passik SD, Kirsh KL, Donaghy K, Holtsclaw E, Theobald D, Cella D, Breitbart W, Fatigue Coalition (2002) Patient-related barriers to fatigue communication: initial validation of the fatigue management barriers questionnaire. J Pain Symptom Manag 24(5):481–493CrossRef
20.
Hoerger M, Epstein RM, Winters PC, Fiscella K, Duberstein PR, Gramling R, Butow PN, Mohile SG, Kaesberg PR, Tang W, Plumb S, Walczak A, Back AL, Tancredi D, Venuti A, Cipri C, Escalera G, Ferro C, Gaudion D, Hoh B, Leatherwood B, Lewis L, Robinson M, Sullivan P, Kravitz RL (2013) Values and options in cancer care (VOICE): study design and rationale for a patient-centered communication and decision-making intervention for physicians, patients with advanced cancer, and their caregivers. BMC Cancer 13(1):188CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
B raun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101CrossRef
22.
D’Agostino TA, Atkinson TM, Latella LE, Rogers M, Morrissey D, DeRosa AP, Parker PA (2017) Promoting patient participation in healthcare interactions through communication skills training: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 100:1247–1257CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Rao JK, Anderson LA, Sukumar B, Beauchesne DA, Stein T, Frankel RM (2010) Engaging communication experts in a Delphi process to identify patient behaviors that could enhance communication in medical encounters. BMC Health Serv Res 10(1):97CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Alegría M, Sribney W, Perez D, Laderman M, Keefe K (2009) The role of patient activation on patient–provider communication and quality of care for US and foreign born Latino patients. J Gen Intern Med 24(3):534–541CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Burleson BR, Daly J, Wiemann J (1994) Comforting messages: features, functions, and outcomes. In: Daly JA, Wiemann JM (eds) Strategic Interpersonal Communication. Routledge, Hillsdale, p 135–161
26.
Beck RS, Daughtridge R, Sloane PD (2002) Physician-patient communication in the primary care office: a systematic review. J Am Board Fam Pract 15(1):25–38PubMed
27.
Zachariae R, Pedersen CG, Jensen AB, Ehrnrooth E, Rossen PB, von der Maase H (2003) Association of perceived physician communication style with patient satisfaction, distress, cancer-related self-efficacy, and perceived control over the disease. Br J Cancer 88(5):658–665CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Flickinger TE, Saha S, Roter D, Korthuis PT, Sharp V, Cohn J, Eggly S, Moore RD, Beach MC (2016) Clinician empathy is associated with differences in patient–clinician communication behaviors and higher medication self-efficacy in HIV care. Patient Educ Couns 99(2):220–226CrossRefPubMed
29.
Del Piccolo L, Mazzi M, Saltini A, Zimmermann C (2002) Inter and intra individual variations in physicians’ verbal behaviour during primary care consultations. Soc Sci Med 55(10):1871–1885CrossRefPubMed
30.
Wooffitt R (2005) Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: a comparative and critical introduction. Sage, LondonCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Patterns of interactions among patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, their caregivers, and healthcare providers during symptom discussions
Publication date
01-10-2018
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 10/2018
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-018-4202-5

Other articles of this Issue 10/2018

Supportive Care in Cancer 10/2018 Go to the issue

Commentary

Photobiomodulation therapy in the management of oral mucositis: search for the optimal clinical treatment parameters

Original Article

Perceptions of masculinity and body image in men with prostate cancer: the role of exercise

Original Article

Online information and support needs of women with advanced breast cancer: a qualitative analysis

Original Article

Quality of life in cancer patients—a comparison of inpatient, outpatient, and rehabilitation settings

Original Article

Spiritual needs and their associated factors among cancer patients in China: a cross-sectional study

Original Article

Validation of the EPIPHANY index for predicting risk of serious complications in cancer patients with incidental pulmonary embolism
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
Image Credits