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
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Cancer
Published in: BMC Cancer 1/2013

Open Access 01-12-2013 | Study protocol

Listening in on difficult conversations: an observational, multi-center investigation of real-time conversations in medical oncology

Authors: Brittany C Kimball, Katherine M James, Kathleen J Yost, Cara A Fernandez, Ashok Kumbamu, Aaron L Leppin, Marguerite E Robinson, Gail Geller, Debra L Roter, Susan M Larson, Heinz-Josef Lenz, Agustin A Garcia, Clarence H Braddock III, Aminah Jatoi, María Luisa Zúñiga de Nuncio, Victor M Montori, Barbara A Koenig, Jon C Tilburt

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The quality of communication in medical care has been shown to influence health outcomes. Cancer patients, a highly diverse population, communicate with their clinical care team in diverse ways over the course of their care trajectory. Whether that communication happens and how effective it is may relate to a variety of factors including the type of cancer and the patient’s position on the cancer care continuum. Yet, many of the routine needs of cancer patients after initial cancer treatment are often not addressed adequately. Our goal is to identify areas of strength and areas for improvement in cancer communication by investigating real-time cancer consultations in a cross section of patient-clinician interactions at diverse study sites.

Methods/design

In this paper we describe the rationale and approach for an ongoing observational study involving three institutions that will utilize quantitative and qualitative methods and employ a short-term longitudinal, prospective follow-up component to investigate decision-making, key topics, and clinician-patient-companion communication dynamics in clinical oncology.

Discussion

Through a comprehensive, real-time approach, we hope to provide the fundamental groundwork from which to promote improved patient-centered communication in cancer care.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Society AC: Cancer facts & figures 2012. 2012, Atlanta: American Cancer Society
2.
Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T: Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997, 44 (5): 681-692. 10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00221-3.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Epstein R, Street RJ: Patient-centered communication in cancer care: promoting healing and reducing suffering. 2007, Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, NIH Publication No. 07–6225
4.
Legare F, Ratte S, Gravel K, Graham ID: Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals' perceptions. Patient education and counseling. 2008, 73 (3): 526-535. 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.018.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Stewart M, Brown JB, Donner A, McWhinney IR, Oates J, Weston WW, Jordan J: The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes. J Fam Pract. 2000, 49 (9): 796-804.PubMed
6.
Thorne SE, Bultz BD, Baile WF: Is there a cost to poor communication in cancer care?: a critical review of the literature. Psychooncology. 2005, 14 (10): 875-884. 10.1002/pon.947.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Institute of Medicine: From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition. 2006, Washington, DC: National Academies Press
8.
Smith Q, Street RJ, Volk R, Fordis M: Differing levels of clinical evidence: exploring communication challenges in shared decision-making. Med Care Res Rev. 2013, 70: 3-13. 10.1177/1077558712449056.CrossRef
9.
Munoz FA, Servin AE, Kozo J, Lam M, Zuniga ML: A binational comparison of HIV provider attitudes towards the use of complementary and alternative medicine among HIV-positive latino patients receiving care in the US-mexico border region. AIDS Care. 2012, 25 (8): 990-997.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Zuniga ML, Blanco E, Martinez P, Strathdee SA, Gifford AL: Perceptions of barriers and facilitators to participation in clinical trials in HIV-positive latinas: a pilot study. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2007, 16 (9): 1322-1330. 10.1089/jwh.2006.0234.CrossRef
11.
McCormack LA, Treiman K, Rupert D, Williams-Piehota P, Nadler E, Arora NK, Lawrence W, Street RL: Measuring patient-centered communication in cancer care: a literature review and the development of a systematic approach. Soc Sci Med. 2011, 72 (7): 1085-1095. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.01.020.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Kantsiper M, McDonald EL, Geller G, Shockney L, Snyder C, Wolff AC: Transitioning to breast cancer survivorship: perspectives of patients, cancer specialists, and primary care providers. J Gen Intern Med. 2009, 24 (Suppl 2): S459-466.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Siminoff LA, Step MM: A communication model of shared decision making: accounting for cancer treatment decisions. Health Psychol. 2005, 24 (4 Suppl): S99-S105.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Pollak KI, Arnold RM, Jeffreys AS, Alexander SC, Olsen MK, Abernethy AP, Sugg Skinner C, Rodriguez KL, Tulsky JA: Oncologist communication about emotion during visits with patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007, 25 (36): 5748-5752. 10.1200/JCO.2007.12.4180.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P: The control preferences scale. Can J Nurs Res. 1997, 29 (3): 21-43.PubMed
16.
Dyer N, Sorra JS, Smith SA, Cleary PD, Hays RD: Psychometric properties of the consumer assessment of healthcare providers and systems (CAHPS(R)) clinician and group adult visit survey. Med Care. 2012, 50 (Suppl): S28-34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Grunberg SM, Groshen S, Steingass S, Zaretsky S, Meyerowitz B: Comparison of conditional quality of life terminology and visual analogue scale measurements. Qual Life Res. 1996, 5 (1): 65-72. 10.1007/BF00435970.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Kriston L, Scholl I, Holzel L, Simon D, Loh A, Harter M: The 9-item shared decision making questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient education and counseling. 2010, 80 (1): 94-99. 10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.034.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Chew LD, Bradley KA, Boyko EJ: Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy. Fam Med. 2004, 36 (8): 588-594.PubMed
20.
Chew LD, Griffin JM, Partin MR, Noorbaloochi S, Grill JP, Snyder A, Bradley KA, Nugent SM, Baines AD, Vanryn M: Validation of screening questions for limited health literacy in a large VA outpatient population. J Gen Intern Med. 2008, 23 (5): 561-566. 10.1007/s11606-008-0520-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Sloan J, Symonds T, Vargas-Chanes D, Fridley B: Practical guidelines for assessing the clinical significance of health-related quality of life changes within clinical trials. Drug Inf J. 2003, 37: 23-31.
22.
Kaufman S: And a time to Die: How american hospitals shape the End of life. 2005, New York: Scribner
23.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG: Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009, 42 (2): 377-381. 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Ong LM, Visser MR, Kruyver IP, Bensing JM, van den Brink-Muinen A, Stouthard JM, Lammes FB, de Haes JC: The roter interaction analysis system (RIAS) in oncological consultations: psychometric properties. Psychooncology. 1998, 7 (5): 387-401. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1611(1998090)7:5<387::AID-PON316>3.0.CO;2-G.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Roter D, Larson S: The Roter interaction analysis system (RIAS): utility and flexibility for analysis of medical interactions. Patient education and counseling. 2002, 46 (4): 243-251. 10.1016/S0738-3991(02)00012-5.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Roter D: The enduring and evolving nature of the patient-physician relationship. Patient education and counseling. 2000, 39 (1): 5-15. 10.1016/S0738-3991(99)00086-5.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Ford S, Fallowfield L, Lewis S: Doctor-patient interactions in oncology. Soc Sci Med. 1996, 42 (11): 1511-1519. 10.1016/0277-9536(95)00265-0.CrossRefPubMed
28.
29.
Sobo E: Culture and meaning in health services research: A practical field guide. 2009, Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, Inc
30.
Guba E, Lincoln Y: Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of qualitative research. Edited by: Denzin N, Lincoln Y. 1994, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 105-117.
31.
Hull S, Taylor H, Kass N: Qualitative research. Methods in medical ethics. Edited by: Sugarman J, Sulmasy D. 2001, Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 146-168.
32.
Marshal P, Koenig B: Anthropology and bioethics. Encyclopedia of bioethics. Edited by: Post S. 2004, New York: MacMillan, 215-222. 3
33.
Marshall P, Koenig B: Ethnographic methods. Methods in medical ethics. Edited by: Sugarman J, Sulmasy D. 2010, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, Press
34.
Braddock CH, Edwards KA, Hasenberg NM, Laidley TL, Levinson W: Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA. 1999, 282 (24): 2313-2320. 10.1001/jama.282.24.2313.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Elwyn G, Edwards A, Wensing M, Hood K, Atwell C, Grol R: Shared decision making: developing the OPTION scale for measuring patient involvement. Quality & safety in health care. 2003, 12 (2): 93-99. 10.1136/qhc.12.2.93.CrossRef
36.
Abadie R, Weymiller AJ, Tilburt J, Shah ND, Charles C, Gafni A, Montori VM: Clinician's use of the statin choice decision aid in patients with diabetes: a videographic study nested in a randomized trial. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009, 15 (3): 492-497. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01048.x.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Weiss MC, Peters TJ: Measuring shared decision making in the consultation: a comparison of the OPTION and informed decision making instruments. Patient education and counseling. 2008, 70 (1): 79-86. 10.1016/j.pec.2007.09.001.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Jansen AC, van Aalst-Cohen ES, Hutten BA, Buller HR, Kastelein JJ, Prins MH: Guidelines were developed for data collection from medical records for use in retrospective analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005, 58 (3): 269-274. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.07.006.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Coleman T, Manku-Scott T: Comparison of video-recorded consultations with those in which patients' consent is withheld. Br J Gen Pract. 1998, 48 (427): 971-974.PubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Inui TS, Carter WB, Kukull WA, Haigh VH: Outcome-based doctor-patient interaction anaylsis: I. Comparison of techniques. Med Care. 1982, 20 (6): 535-549. 10.1097/00005650-198206000-00001.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Pringle M, Stewart-Evans C: Does awareness of being video recorded affect doctors' consultation behaviour?. Br J Gen Pract. 1990, 40 (340): 455-458.PubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Redman S, Dickinson J, Cockburn J, Hennrikus D, S-F RW: The assessment of reactivity in direct observation studies of doctor-patient interactions. Psychol Health. 1989, 3: 17-28. 10.1080/08870448908400362.CrossRef
43.
Eremenco SL, Cella D, Arnold BJ: A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Eval Health Prof. 2005, 28 (2): 212-232. 10.1177/0163278705275342.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Hahn EA, Cella D: Health outcomes assessment in vulnerable populations: measurement challenges and recommendations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003, 84 (4 Suppl 2): S35-42.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Hahn EA, Holzner B, Kemmler G, Sperner-Unterweger B, Hudgens SA, Cella D: Cross-cultural evaluation of health status using item response theory: FACT-B comparisons between Austrian and U.S. patients with breast cancer. Eval Health Prof. 2005, 28 (2): 233-259. 10.1177/0163278705275343.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Roter DL, Stewart M, Putnam SM, Lipkin M, Stiles W, Inui TS: Communication patterns of primary care physicians. JAMA. 1997, 277 (4): 350-356. 10.1001/jama.1997.03540280088045.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Listening in on difficult conversations: an observational, multi-center investigation of real-time conversations in medical oncology
Authors
Brittany C Kimball
Katherine M James
Kathleen J Yost
Cara A Fernandez
Ashok Kumbamu
Aaron L Leppin
Marguerite E Robinson
Gail Geller
Debra L Roter
Susan M Larson
Heinz-Josef Lenz
Agustin A Garcia
Clarence H Braddock III
Aminah Jatoi
María Luisa Zúñiga de Nuncio
Victor M Montori
Barbara A Koenig
Jon C Tilburt
Publication date
01-12-2013
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2013
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-13-455

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

BMC Cancer 1/2013 Go to the issue

Study protocol

A randomised controlled trial of a mindfulness intervention for men with advanced prostate cancer

Research article

MicroRNA-302b suppresses cell proliferation by targeting EGFR in human hepatocellular carcinoma SMMC-7721 cells

Debate

Fool’s gold, lost treasures, and the randomized clinical trial

Research article

Expressional alterations in functional ultra-conserved non-coding rnas in response to all-transretinoic acid - induced differentiation in neuroblastoma cells

Research article

The oncogenic properties of EWS/WT1 of desmoplastic small round cell tumors are unmasked by loss of p53 in murine embryonic fibroblasts

Case report

Activity of EGFR-tyrosine kinase and ALK inhibitors for EML4–ALK-rearranged non–small–cell lung cancer harbored coexisting EGFRmutation
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