How can communication by oncologists enhance patients' trust? An experimental study

Factors associated with patient preferences for communication of bad news

OBJECTIVE

Communication based on patient preferences can alleviate their psychological distress and is an important part of patient-centered care for physicians who have the task of conveying bad news to cancer patients. The present study aimed to explore the demographic, medical, and psychological factors associated with patient preferences with regard to communication of bad news.

METHODS

Outpatients with a variety of cancers were consecutively invited to participate in our study after their follow-up medical visit. A questionnaire assessed their preferences regarding the communication of bad news, covering four factors-(1) how bad news is delivered, (2) reassurance and emotional support, (3) additional information, and (4) setting-as well as on demographic, medical, and psychosocial factors.

RESULTS

A total of 529 outpatients with a variety of cancers completed the questionnaire. Multiple regression analyses indicated that patients who were younger, female, had greater faith in their physician, and were more highly educated placed more importance on "how bad news is delivered" than patients who were older, male, had less faith in their physician, and a lower level of education. Female patients and patients without an occupation placed more importance on "reassurance and emotional support." Younger, female, and more highly educated patients placed more importance on "additional information." Younger, female, and more highly educated patients, along with patients who weren't undergoing active treatment placed more importance on "setting."

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Patient preferences with regard to communication of bad news are associated with factors related to patient background. Physicians should consider these characteristics when delivering bad news and use an appropriate communication style tailored to each patient.

Analogue patients' self-reported engagement and psychophysiological arousal in a video-vignettes design: Patients versus disease-naïve individuals

OBJECTIVES

The ecological validity of video-vignettes design investigating patient-provider communication hinges on the engagement of analogue patients (APs) with the vignette. The present study aimed to compare engagement in two commonly utilized groups of APs, patients and disease-naïve individuals. Engagement was assessed by self-report and in the form of physiological arousal.

METHODS

Cancer patients (N=22) and disease-naïve individuals (N=24) were recruited as APs. APs completed the Video Engagement Scale after watching a vignette of a oncologic bad news consultation. Electrodermal and cardiovascular activity were assessed continuously during watching the vignette, and cortisol levels were assessed in four saliva samples.

RESULTS

Patients reported higher engagement with the vignette than disease-naïve individuals (t=2.46, p<0.05) and showed a larger blood pressure response (systolic: F=5.87, p<0.01 and diastolic: F=4.00, p<0.05). However, these differences disappeared after adjusting for age. No group differences were found on other psychophysiological parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that patients and disease-naïve individuals are equally engaged when viewing video vignettes. When group differences were found, older age turned out to be a more prominent predictor of engagement.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Researchers may consider other arguments besides APs' disease history when selecting an AP group.

Is it possible to encourage hope in non-advanced cancer patients? We must try

BACKGROUND

Data are lacking on the relationship between hope and other variables in non-advanced cancer patients. The study explored the relationship between hope, symptoms, needs, and spirituality/religiosity in patients treated in a supportive care unit (SCU).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From September 2013 to March 2014, the consecutive patients who accepted to complete: (i) Needs Evaluation Questionnaire (NEQ), (ii) the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), (iii) Hope Herth Index (HHI), and (iv) the System of Belief Inventory (SBI) were enrolled. Moreover, clinical/demographic data were collected and the findings were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 276 patients who completed the HHI questionnaire (participation rate 276/300 = 92%) were included; 131 reported HHI total score >37 (median value). The majority of patients had a Karnofsky performance status >80; 71% were on cancer therapies, and only 29 patients had metastases or relapse. Patients with higher HHI scores were less educated (P = 0.012), reported lower ESAS total score (15.4 versus 22.6, P < 0.001), and had less often been referred to a psychologist previously to the study (P = 0.002); patients with a higher HHI score also reported higher spirituality (P < 0.001). Some NEQ items resulted significantly associated with HHI score after adjustment for other variables: the need to have sincere clinicians (β = -2.7), better dialogue (β = -2.1), and more reassurance from the clinicians (β = -2.5); better attention (β = -4.4) and respect for intimacy (β = -3.3) from nurses; to speak with people who have the same illness experience (β = -2.5), to be more reassured by relatives (β = -3.3) and to feel less abandoned (β = -4.3). Higher SBI scores were independently associated with higher HHI scores (β = 1.7 for 10 points increase).

CONCLUSIONS

In cancer patients, hope can be encouraged by clinicians through dialogue, sincerity, and reassurance, as well as assessing and considering the patients' needs (above all the psycho-emotional), symptoms, psychological frailty, and their spiritual/religious resources.

All eyes on the patient: the influence of oncologists' nonverbal communication on breast cancer patients' trust

Trust in the oncologist is crucial for breast cancer patients. It reduces worry, enhances decision making, and stimulates adherence. Optimal nonverbal communication by the oncologist, particularly eye contact, body posture, and smiling, presumably benefits patients’ trust. We were the first to experimentally examine (1) how the oncologist’s nonverbal behavior influences trust, and (2) individual differences in breast cancer patients’ trust. Analogue patients (APs) viewed one out of eight versions of a video vignette displaying a consultation about chemotherapy treatment. All eight versions varied only in the oncologist’s amount of eye contact (consistent vs. inconsistent), body posture (forward leaning vs. varying), and smiling (occasional smiling vs. no smiling). Primary outcome was trust in the observed oncologist (Trust in Oncologist Scale). 214 APs participated. Consistent eye contact led to stronger trust (β = −.13, p = .04). This effect was largely explained by lower educated patients, for whom the effect of consistent eye contact was stronger than for higher educated patients (β = .18, p = .01). A forward leaning body posture did not influence trust, nor did smiling. However, if the oncologist smiled more, he was perceived as more friendly (r_s = .31, p < .001) and caring (r_s = .18, p = .01). Older (β = .17, p = .01) and lower educated APs (β = −.25, p < .001) were more trusting. Trust was weaker for more avoidantly attached APs (β = −.16, p = .03). We experimentally demonstrated the importance of maintaining consistent eye contact for breast cancer patients’ trust, especially among lower educated patients. These findings need to be translated into training for oncologists in how to optimize their nonverbal communication with breast cancer patients while simultaneously managing increased time pressure and computer use during the consultation.

Does source of patient recruitment affect the impact of communication on trust?

OBJECTIVES

To investigate how comparable outcomes of medical communication research are when using different patient accrual methods by comparing cancer patients organization members with outpatient clinic patients.

METHODS

In an experimental video-vignettes study, the impact of oncologist communication on trust was tested. Background characteristics (socio-demographics, trait anxiety, health locus of control and attachment style), reported trust, and the impact of communication on trust were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Cancer patient organization members (n=196) were younger and higher educated than clinical patients (n=148). Members felt more personal control over their health (p<.01) but were also more anxious (p<.05). They reported lower trust in general health care (p<.05), in their own oncologist (p<.001) and in the oncologist in the videos (p<.05). The impact of oncologist communication on trust was similar for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite considerable differences in trust levels, both groups appear equally affected by oncologist communication. Thus, although including cancer patient organization members may impact the generalizability of some findings, using these participants to investigate communication appears justified.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Cancer patient organization members may regard their oncologist more critically. Research including both members and patients recruited through hospital clinics could take group membership into account as a possible confounder. Nonetheless, communicating competence, honesty and caring may benefit the relation with these patients similarly as with other patients.