Pushing up daisies: implicit and explicit language in oncologist-patient communication about death

Patients' experiences with shared decision-making in home-based palliative care - navigation through major life decisions

BACKGROUND

This study addresses the issue of shared decision-making (SDM) in a Norwegian home-based palliative care setting. The significance of patient involvement in SDM is widely acknowledged, and many patients want to participate in decisions about care and treatment. Yet, it remains a need for more knowledge regarding the initiators and approaches of SDM in the context of home-based palliative care, particularly from the patients' perspective. The aim of this study is to understand patients' experiences and preferences for SDM in home-based palliative care, seeking to enhance the quality of care and direct the planning of healthcare services.

METHODS

We used a qualitative explorative design. A hermeneutic approach was employed, and data was collected through in-dept interviews with 13 patients.

RESULTS

The study uncovered an overarching theme of "Navigating to reach own decisions," comprising three sub-themes: "To be trapped in life without decisions to act on"; "To surrender to others and let others deal with decisions"; "To continue to be oneself without focusing on disease and decision-making".

CONCLUSIONS

The findings underscore the need for flexible, person-centered approaches in SDM, tailored to the fluctuating health literacy and changing preferences of patients in palliative care settings. Our study contributes to the understanding of SDM in palliative care by highlighting how patients navigate the balance between autonomy and reliance on HCPs. Future research should explore how healthcare systems, including HCPs' roles in the system, can adapt to the patients' dynamic needs, to ensuring that SDM will remain a supportive and empowering process for patients at all stages of their disease.

Question prompt list intervention for patients with advanced cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Enhanced communication in end-of-life care (EOL) improves preparation and treatment decisions for patients with advanced cancer, affecting their quality of life at the end of life. Question prompt list (QPL) has been shown to enhance physician-patient communication in patients with cancer, but there is a lack of systematic review and meta-analysis for those with advanced cancer. Enhanced communication in end-of-life care improves preparation and treatment decisions for patients with advanced cancer, affecting their quality of life at the end of life.

OBJECTIVE

To review the effectiveness of QPL intervention on physician-patient communication and health outcomes during consultation in patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS

CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and PsycINFO databases were undertaken using inclusion criteria for relevant articles up to August 2021. Pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool and modified Jadad scale to assess the quality of the studies.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs with 1059 participants were included, of which six studies were eligible for the meta-analysis. The pooled meta-analysis results indicated that QPL in patients with advanced cancer had a significant positive effect on the total number of questions asked (SMD, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.18; I2 = 83%) and on the patients' expectations for the future (SMD, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.08 to 1.25; I2 = 88%). There were no significant improvements in health-related outcomes such as end of life, anxiety, and quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Using QPL in advanced cancer consultations boosts patient questions which helps communication but not health-related indicators. Optimal results depend on full reading, but timing varies. Future research should examine the relationship between communication and health outcomes, including patient/physician behavior and social context.

Exploring the Important Determinants Shaping Treatment Preferences: Qualitative Insights into Breast Cancer Patient Experiences and Perspectives in New Zealand

Purpose

Despite the importance of acknowledging patient preferences in treatment decision-making, little is known about the treatment preferences and the factors underlying those preferences of breast cancer patients. This study aims explore patient experience and perspective regarding treatment preferences and identify the important determinants that shape these preferences in the context of New Zealand.

Patients and Methods

Semi-structured online interviews comprised of six focus group discussions and five individual interviews were performed with 26 breast cancer patients. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the reflexive thematic analysis approach.

Results

Four main themes were derived: (1) positive treatment outcomes; (2) the negative impact of treatment-related side effects on quality of life; (3) treatment accessibility, availability, and timeliness; (4) cost of treatment. Patients revealed a strong preference towards treatments that yield longer survival, achieve remission, and prevent cancer recurrence. Additionally, patients favored treatments with minimal side effects that had minimal impact on their quality of life. There was a notable preference for treatments that were easily accessible and available in a timely manner. However, patients faced challenging decisions in balancing the costs of treatments with their benefits, leading to a consistent preference for treatments supported by government funding or medical insurance to alleviate financial burdens.

Conclusion

Our study reveals that breast cancer patients in New Zealand have different perceptions and preferences regarding cancer treatment. Patients frequently find themselves making trade-offs among various attributes of a treatment, aligning these decisions with their personal values and beliefs. By considering these preferences and trade-offs in future studies that measure patient preferences, healthcare professionals can enhance their support for patients in making informed choices that align with their values and priorities. Additionally, healthcare policymakers can develop patient-centered policies that cater to the unique needs and preferences of breast cancer patients.

"You'll need to settle your affairs": How the subject of death is approached by oncologists and advanced cancer patients in follow-up consultations

OBJECTIVES

This qualitative study aimed to investigate communication about death in consultations with patients undergoing chemotherapy with no curative intent. Specifically, we examined (i) how the topic of death was approached, who raised it, in what way, and which responses were elicited, (ii) how the topic unfolded during consultations, and (iii) whether interaction patterns or distinguishing ways of communicating can be identified.

METHODS

The data consisted of 134 audio-recorded follow-up consultations. A framework of sensitizing concepts was developed, and interaction patterns were looked for when death was discussed.

RESULTS

The subject of death and dying was most often initiated by patients, and they raised it in various ways. In most consultations, direct talk about death was initiated only once. We identified 4 interaction patterns. The most frequent consists of indirect references to death by patients, followed by a direct mention of the death of a loved one, and a statement of the oncologists aiming to skip the subject.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Patients and oncologists have multiple ways of raising, pursuing, addressing and evacuating the subject of death. Being attentive and recognizing these ways and associated interaction patterns can help oncologists to think and elaborate on this topic and to facilitate discussions.

Characterizing the Language Used to Discuss Death in Family Meetings for Critically Ill Infants

Importance

Communication during conversations about death is critical; however, little is known about the language clinicians and families use to discuss death.

Objective

To characterize (1) the way death is discussed in family meetings between parents of critically ill infants and the clinical team and (2) how discussion of death differs between clinicians and family members.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This longitudinal qualitative study took place at a single academic hospital in the southeast US. Patients were enrolled from September 2018 to September 2020, and infants were followed up longitudinally throughout their hospitalization. Participants included families of infants with neurologic conditions who were hospitalized in the intensive care unit and had a planned family meeting to discuss neurologic prognosis or starting, not starting, or discontinuing life-sustaining treatment. Family meetings were recorded, transcribed, and deidentified before being screened for discussion of death.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was the language used to reference death during family meetings between parents and clinicians. Conventional content analysis was used to analyze data.

Results

A total of 68 family meetings involving 36 parents of 24 infants were screened; 33 family meetings (49%) involving 20 parents (56%) and 13 infants (54%) included discussion of death. Most parents involved in discussion of death identified as the infant's mother (13 [65%]) and as Black (12 [60%]). Death was referenced 406 times throughout the family meetings (275 times by clinicians and 131 times by family members); the words die, death, dying, or stillborn were used 5% of the time by clinicians (13 of 275 references) and 15% of the time by family members (19 of 131 references). Four types of euphemisms used in place of die, death, dying, or stillborn were identified: (1) survival framing (eg, not live), (2) colloquialisms (eg, pass away), (3) medical jargon, including obscure technical terms (eg, code event) or talking around death with physiologic terms (eg, irrecoverable heart rate drop), and (4) pronouns without an antecedent (eg, it). The most common type of euphemism used by clinicians was medical jargon (118 of 275 references [43%]). The most common type of euphemism used by family members was colloquialism (44 of 131 references [34%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this qualitative study, the words die, death, dying, or stillborn were rarely used to refer to death in family meetings with clinicians. Families most often used colloquialisms to reference death, and clinicians most often used medical jargon. Future work should evaluate the effects of euphemisms on mutual understanding, shared decision-making, and clinician-family relationships.

Characteristics of patients with advanced cancer preferring not to know prognosis: a multicenter survey study

Background

For some patients with advanced cancer not knowing prognosis is essential. Yet, in an era of informed decision-making, the potential protective function of unawareness is easily overlooked. We aimed to investigate 1) the proportion of advanced cancer patients preferring not to know prognosis; 2) the reasons underlying patients’ prognostic information preference; 3) the characteristics associated with patients’ prognostic information preference; and 4) the concordance between physicians’ perceived and patients’ actual prognostic information preference.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional study with structured surveys (PROSPECT). Medical and thoracic oncologists included patients (n = 524), from seven Dutch hospitals, with metastatic/inoperable cancer and an expected median overall survival of ≤ 12 months. For analysis, descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used.

Results

Twenty-five to 31% of patients preferred not to know a general life expectancy estimate or the 5/2/1-year mortality risk. Compared to patients preferring to know prognosis, patients preferring unawareness more often reported optimism, avoidance and inability to comprehend information as reasons for wanting limited information; and less often reported expectations of others, anxiety, autonomy and a sense of control as reasons for wanting complete information. Females (p < .05), patients receiving a further line of systemic treatment (p < .01) and patients with strong fighting spirit (p < .001) were more likely to prefer not to know prognosis. Concordance between physicians’ perceived and patients’ actual prognostic information preference was poor (kappa = 0.07).

Conclusions

We encourage physicians to explore patients’ prognostic information preferences and the underlying reasons explicitly, enabling individually tailored communication. Future studies may investigate changes in patients’ prognostic information preferences over time and examine the impact of prognostic disclosure on patients who prefer unawareness.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09911-8.

Prognostic communication about lung cancer in the precision oncology era: A multiple-perspective qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Although most patients with cancer prefer to know their prognosis, prognostic communication between oncologists and patients is often insufficient. Targeted therapies for lung cancer improve survival yet are not curative and produce variable responses. This study sought to describe how oncologists communicate about prognosis with patients receiving targeted therapies for lung cancer.

METHODS

This qualitative study included 39 patients with advanced lung cancer with targetable mutations, 14 caregivers, and 10 oncologists. Semistructured interviews with patients and caregivers and focus groups or interviews with oncologists were conducted to explore their experiences with prognostic communication. One oncology follow-up visit was audio-recorded per patient. A framework approach was used to analyze interview transcripts, and a content analysis of patient-oncologist dialogue was conducted. Themes were identified within each source and then integrated across sources to create a multidimensional description of prognostic communication.

RESULTS

Six themes in prognostic communication were identified: Patients with targetable mutations develop a distinct identity in the lung cancer community that affects their information-seeking and self-advocacy; oncologists set high expectations for targeted therapy; the uncertain availability of new therapies complicates prognostic discussions; patients and caregivers have variable information preferences; patients raise questions about progression by asking about physical symptoms or scan results; and patients' expectations of targeted therapy influence their medical decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimistic patient-oncologist communication shapes the expectations of patients receiving targeted therapy for lung cancer and affects their decision-making. Further research and clinical guidance are needed to help oncologists to communicate uncertain outcomes effectively.

Communicating with patients and families about illness progression and end of life: a review of studies using direct observation of clinical practice

BACKGROUND

There is growing recognition that a diverse range of healthcare professionals need competence in palliative approaches to care. Effective communication is a core component of such practice. This article informs evidence-based communication about illness progression and end of life through a rapid review of studies that directly observe how experienced clinicians manage such discussions.

METHODS

The current rapid review updates findings of a 2014 systematic review, focussing more specifically on evidence related to illness progression and end-of-life conversations. Literature searches were conducted in nine bibliographic databases. Studies using conversation analysis or discourse analysis to examine recordings of actual conversations about illness progression or end of life were eligible for inclusion in the review. An aggregative approach was used to synthesise the findings of included studies.

RESULTS

Following screening, 26 sources were deemed to meet eligibility criteria. Synthesis of study findings identified the structure and functioning of ten communication practices used in discussions about illness progression and end-of-life.

CONCLUSION

The ten practices identified underpin five evidence-based recommendations for communicating with patients or family members about illness progression and end of life.

'I Don't Have a Crystal Ball' - Why Do Doctors Tend to Avoid Prognostication?

Uncertainty, fear to harm the patient, discomfort handling the discussion and lack of time are the most cited barriers to prognostic disclosure. Physicians can be reassured that patients desire the truth about prognosis and can manage the discussion without harm, including the uncertainty of the information, if approached in a sensitive manner. Conversational guides could provide support in preparing such difficult conversations. Communicating 'with realism and hope' is possible, and anxiety is normal for both patients and clinicians during prognostic disclosure. As a clinician pointed out: 'I had asked a mentor once if it ever got easier. - No. But you get better at it.'

Communication about Prognosis during Patient-Initiated Second Opinion Consultations in Advanced Cancer Care: An Observational Qualitative Analysis

Prognostic communication is essential for patients with advanced cancer to enable informed medical decision-making and end-of-life planning. Discussing prognosis is challenging, and might be especially complex for oncologists conducting a second opinion (SO). Survival data are often lacking, and consulting oncologists need to consider previously conveyed information and patients’ relationship with the referring oncologist. We qualitatively investigated how advanced cancer patients and consulting oncologists discuss prognosis during audio-recorded SO consultations (N = 60), including prognostic information received from the referring oncologist. Our results show that patients regularly expressed implicit cues to discuss prognosis or posed explicit questions tentatively. Consulting oncologists were mostly unresponsive to patients’ cues and cautious to prognosticate. They also seemed cautious when patients brought up the referring oncologist. Consulting oncologists checked which prognostic information patients had received from the referring oncologist, before estimating prognosis. They agreed with the first opinion or rectified discrepancies carefully. Altogether, this study exposes missed opportunities for open prognostic discussions in SOs. Consulting oncologists could explicitly explore patients’ information preferences and perceptions of prognosis. If desired, they can provide tailored, independent information to optimise patients’ prognostic awareness and informed medical decision-making. They may additionally support patients in dealing with prognosis and the uncertainties associated with it.

The Effect of Disclosing Life Expectancy Information on Patients' Prognostic Understanding: Secondary Outcomes From a Multicenter Randomized Trial of a Palliative Chemotherapy Educational Intervention

CONTEXT

Many advanced patients with cancer have unrealistic prognostic expectations.

OBJECTIVES

We tested whether offering life expectancy (LE) statistics within palliative chemotherapy (PC) education promotes realistic expectations.

METHODS

In this multicenter trial, patients with advanced colorectal and pancreatic cancers initiating first or second line PC were randomized to usual care versus a PC educational tool with optional LE information. Surveys at two weeks and three months assessed patients' review of the LE module and their reactions; at three months, patients estimated their LE and reported occurrence of prognosis and end-of-life (EOL) discussions. Wilcoxon tests and proportional odds models evaluated between-arm differences in LE self-estimates, and how realistic those estimates were (based on cancer type and line of treatment).

RESULTS

From 2015 to 2017, 92 patients were randomized to the intervention and 94 to usual care. At baseline most patients (80.9%) wanted "a lot" or "as much information as possible" about the impact of chemotherapy on LE. Among patients randomized to the intervention, 52.0% reviewed the LE module by two weeks and 66.7% by three months-of whom 88.2% reported the information was important, 31.4% reported it was upsetting, and 3.9% regretted reviewing it. Overall, patients' LE self-estimates were very optimistic; 71.4% of patients with colorectal cancer estimated greater than five years; 50% pancreatic patients estimated greater than two years. The intervention had no effect on the length or realism of patients' LE self-estimates, or on the occurrence of prognostic or EOL discussions.

CONCLUSIONS

Offering LE information within a PC educational intervention had no effect on patients' prognostic expectations.

External Validation of the Dutch SOURCE Survival Prediction Model in Belgian Metastatic Oesophageal and Gastric Cancer Patients

The SOURCE prediction model predicts individualised survival conditional on various treatments for patients with metastatic oesophageal or gastric cancer. The aim of this study was to validate SOURCE in an external cohort from the Belgian Cancer Registry. Data of Belgian patients diagnosed with metastatic disease between 2004 and 2014 were extracted (n = 4097). Model calibration and discrimination (c-indices) were determined. A total of 2514 patients with oesophageal cancer and 1583 patients with gastric cancer with a median survival of 7.7 and 5.4 months, respectively, were included. The oesophageal cancer model showed poor calibration (intercept: 0.30, slope: 0.42) with an absolute mean prediction error of 14.6%. The mean difference between predicted and observed survival was -2.6%. The concordance index (c-index) of the oesophageal model was 0.64. The gastric cancer model showed good calibration (intercept: 0.02, slope: 0.91) with an absolute mean prediction error of 2.5%. The mean difference between predicted and observed survival was 2.0%. The c-index of the gastric cancer model was 0.66. The SOURCE gastric cancer model was well calibrated and had a similar performance in the Belgian cohort compared with the Dutch internal validation. However, the oesophageal cancer model had not. Our findings underscore the importance of evaluating the performance of prediction models in other populations.

"The day you lose your hope is the day you start to die": Quality of life measured by young women with metastatic breast cancer

Purpose/Objectives: The number of young women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is growing in the United States. The intersection of age and cancer stage presents unique challenges for this population. However, there is little extant research on the concerns and perspectives of young women with MBC. The purpose of this study is to understand how young women describe their lived experiences following their diagnoses of MBC.Design: A cross-sectional qualitative study with a life course theoretical framework was employed.Sample/Participants: Purposive sampling yielded nine participants who took part in semi-structured interviews. Phenomenology informed understanding of the lived experience of young women with MBC.Findings: The findings describe how young women with MBC measure quality of life, via themes of facing off-time diagnoses, strategizing disclosure, relying on mindfulness and spirituality, contemplating the future, and differentiating surviving from truly living.Conclusion: The notion of short-term or long-term decision-making is clouded by a metastatic prognosis.Implications for Psychosocial Providers: These findings present new information about the needs of young women with MBC, with potentially transferable implications for young adults with other forms of metastatic cancer.

Patient-Clinician Communication Issues in Palliative Care for Patients With Advanced Cancer

The delivery of palliative care to patients with advanced cancer and their families, whether done by oncology clinicians or palliative care clinicians, requires patient-centered communication. Excellent communication can introduce patients and families to palliative care in a nonthreatening way, build patient trust, enable symptom control, strengthen coping, and guide decision making. This review covers deficiencies in the current state of communication, patient preferences for communication about palliative care topics, best practices for communication, and the roles of education and system intervention. Communication is a two-way, relational process that is influenced by context, culture, words, and gestures, and it is one of the most important ways that clinicians influence the quality of medical care that patients and their families receive.

How should we talk about palliative care, death and dying? A qualitative study exploring perspectives from caregivers of people with advanced cancer

BACKGROUND

Health professionals commonly underestimate caregiver needs for information about palliative care, death and dying and may feel poorly prepared to discuss these issues. Few studies have sought caregiver perspectives of these communication practices.

AIM

To explore caregiver perspectives on communication about death, dying and the introduction to palliative care, with a view towards a series of caregiver-informed recommendations for use in clinical practice.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional, prospective, exploratory qualitative design, involving narrative-style interviews and underpinned by an interpretative phenomenological framework.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Purposively sampled, English-speaking, adult caregivers of people with advanced cancer ( n = 25) recruited from cancer services at a tertiary metropolitan hospital in Melbourne, Australia.

RESULTS

Caregivers reported wanting routinely available written resources about palliative care, supplemented by conversations that are ideally staged overtime. Education about the tasks of palliative care should be separated from referral process, allowing time for gradual adjustment, and re-visiting discussion to enable patients and families to take some control in the process of transition. Once death is imminent, carers wanted health professionals to clarify how much they want to know about the dying process; provide spoken acknowledgement when death is close; include the words 'death' and 'dying'; use direct language, avoiding euphemisms; and communicate about death with patient present.

CONCLUSION

This study is among the first to directly address caregiver perspectives of communication about death, dying and the introduction to palliative care. The recommendations derived from caregiver perspectives build upon existing guidelines and offer health professionals some preliminary considerations around how to undertake these important communication tasks in future.

A randomized controlled trial of a skills training for oncologists and a communication aid for patients to stimulate shared decision making about palliative systemic treatment (CHOICE): study protocol

BACKGROUND

Systemic treatment for advanced cancer offers uncertain and sometimes little benefit while the burden can be high. Hence, treatment decisions require Shared Decision Making (SDM). The CHOICE trial examines the separate and combined effect of oncologist training and a patient communication aid on SDM in consultations about palliative systemic treatment.

METHODS

A RCT design with four parallel arms will be adopted. Patients with metastatic or irresectable cancer with a median life expectancy <12 months who meet with a medical oncologist to discuss the start or continuation of palliative systemic treatment are eligible. A total of 24 oncologists (in training) and 192 patients will be recruited. The oncologist training consists of a reader, two group sessions (3.5 h; including modelling videos and role play), a booster feedback session (1 h) and a consultation room tool. The patient communication aid consists of a home-sent question prompt list and a value clarification exercise to prepare patients for SDM in the consultation. The control condition consists of care as usual. The primary outcome is observed SDM in audio-recorded consultations. Secondary outcomes include patient and oncologist evaluation of communication and decision-making, the decision made, quality of life, potential adverse outcomes such as anxiety and hopelessness, and consultation duration. Patients fill out questionnaires at baseline (T0), before (T1) and after the consultation (T2) and at 3 and 6 months (T3 and T4). All oncologists participate in two standardized patient assessments (before-after training) prior to the start of patient inclusion. They will fill out a questionnaire before and after these assessments, as well as after each of the recorded consultations in clinical practice.

DISCUSSION

The CHOICE trial will enable evidence-based choices regarding the investment in SDM interventions targeting either oncologists, patients or both in the advanced cancer setting. The trial takes into account the immediate effect of the interventions on observed communication, but also on more distal and potential adverse patient outcomes. Also, the trial provides evidence regarding the assumption that SDM about palliative cancer treatment results in less aggressive treatment and more quality of life in the final period of life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Registry number NTR5489 (prospective; 15 Sep 2015).

Communication about palliative care: A phenomenological study exploring patient views and responses to its discussion

BACKGROUND

Communication about palliative care is a complex task frequently delayed until otherwise unavoidable. There is a need for discussion of palliative care to be viewed as a distinct communication task that is guided by empirical data. However, little is known of patient views and responses to these encounters.

AIM

To explore patient views surrounding communication about palliative care and their responses to its discussion.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional, prospective, exploratory qualitative design, involving narrative-style interviews and underpinned by an interpretative phenomenological framework.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Purposively sampled, English-speaking, adult patients with advanced cancer ( n = 30) recruited from cancer services at a tertiary metropolitan hospital in Melbourne, Australia.

RESULTS

Three major themes evolved. (1) Death as unspeakable: death was expressed using only implicit, ambiguous or technical terms and perceived to be outside the parameters of medical interactions. (2) Palliative care as a euphemism for death: the term 'palliative care' was perceived to be used by health professionals as a tool to talk about dying and understood by patients as a euphemism for death. (3) Palliative care as unspeakable: 'palliative care' was personified by patients to mean not just death, but my death, in turn, also becoming unspeakable.

CONCLUSION

This study provides important new patient insights and responses to the discussion of palliative care. Results demonstrate that the task of discussing palliative care remains complex, difficult and limited by our language. Greater consistency, sensitivity and sophistication are required when talking about palliative care to patients who may benefit from this care.

How long do I have? Observational study on communication about life expectancy with advanced cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

To examine how communication about life expectancy is initiated in consultations about palliative chemotherapy, and what prognostic information is presented.

METHODS

Patients with advanced cancer (n=41) with a median life expectancy <1year and oncologists (n=6) and oncologists-in-training (n=7) meeting with them in consultations (n=62) to discuss palliative chemotherapy were included. Verbatim transcripts of audio-recorded consultations were analyzed using MAXqda10.

RESULTS

Life expectancy was addressed in 19 of 62 of the consultations. In all cases, patients took the initiative, most often through direct questions. Estimates were provided in 12 consultations in various formats: the likelihood of experiencing a significant event, point estimates or general time scales of "months to years", often with an emphasis on the "years". The indeterminacy of estimates was consistently stressed. Also their potential inadequacy was regularly addressed, often by describing beneficial prognostic predictors for the specific patient. Oncologists did not address the reliability or precision of estimates.

CONCLUSION

Oncologists did not initiate talk about life expectancy, they used different formats, emphasized the positive and stressed unpredictability, yet not ambiguity of estimates.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Prognostic communication should be part of the medical curriculum. Further research should address the effect of different formats of information provision.

Doctors' Perceptions and Practices of Breaking Bad News: A Qualitative Study From Greece

There is limited information about doctors' communication behaviors and their salient beliefs with regard to bad news disclosure in Greece. In this qualitative study we investigated the self-reported practices of doctors on breaking bad news, their perceptions about the factors affecting the delivery of such news, and their beliefs about the most appropriate disclosure manner. A focus group discussion and individual interviews were conducted. Twenty-five resident and specialist doctors from primary health care and hospital settings participated. We analyzed the collected data with content analysis techniques. Participants were found to acknowledge the importance of appropriate and effective delivery of bad news; however, none of them reported the implementation of empirically informed communication practices. They described communication patterns mainly formed by their work experience and often guided by the patient's family requests. Doctor, patient, and family characteristics and organizational features and resources were reported to affect the delivery of bad news. Participants perceived the most appropriate disclosure manner as an individualized approach to each patient's unique needs. They suggested an interdisciplinary, collaborative management of the delivery process and the establishment of formal supportive services. These findings may provide useful information for the development of tailored, empirically informed curriculum interventions and educational programs in order to address several barriers to communication. Sociocultural characteristics that influence the disclosure practice, as well as physicians' perceptions that are consistent with the optimal information delivery, should be taken into account. System-level strategies that focus on the development of patient-centered communication also need to be prioritized.

Affording opportunities to discuss deterioration in paediatric palliative care consultations: a conversation analytic study

Objective

Discussing the potential deterioration of a child who has a life-limiting condition has recognised benefits for future care, but can be challenging in a clinical context where uncertain illness trajectories are common. Existing research is restricted to indirect forms of evidence such as self-report data from clinicians and families. This study directly explores how discussions about deterioration are managed within actual paediatric palliative care consultations.

Methods

9 consultations were video recorded in an Australian paediatric palliative care service. Each consultation involved the same paediatric palliative care specialist. Conversation analysis was used to identify and explore recurrent ways in which discussions about deterioration came to be realised.

Findings

The study identified two communicative practices used by a paediatric palliative care specialist that afforded opportunities to discuss deterioration: (1) soliciting the family's agenda for the consultation; (2) initiating and maintaining topics where discussing deterioration is a relevant possibility. Across these different practices, a common feature was indirect initiation of discussions about deterioration. This approach made such discussions possible, but without mandating or even suggesting that such discussion must occur.

Conclusions

These communicative practices balance the benefit of discussing deterioration against a recognised importance of allowing discussions to be directed by a child's family. This was achieved by creating opportunities for discussing deterioration, without making such discussions necessary.

Preferences regarding disclosure of prognosis and end-of-life care: A survey of cancer patients with advanced disease in a lower-middle-income country

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients' preferences regarding disclosure of prognosis and end-of-life care remain under-reported from low- and middle-income countries where cancer poses an increasing demand on scarce healthcare resources. A better knowledge of these preferences can help in achievement of shared treatment goals.

AIM

To survey preferences of adult cancer patients regarding disclosure of prognosis and end-of-life care

DESIGN

A multidimensional questionnaire was developed to survey consecutively sampled patients. A fifth of the participants completed a repeat survey 3 months later.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients at a specialist cancer center in Pakistan.

RESULTS

In total, 520 patients were surveyed initially (participation rate 98.6%) and 100 completed the repeat survey. Three in five respondents wanted a healthcare provider to give them detailed information about their prognosis and life expectancy. Those who wanted information withheld were significantly more likely to be female, to have a lower socioeconomic status, or to have lung cancer. Only two in five patients agreed that they wanted to die at home and more than 90% wanted all possible care till end-of-life. Yet, a little over half also agreed that they did not wish to be placed on a ventilator. In rank ordering preferences about end-of-life, respondents ranked "religious wellbeing" as the highest and "avoiding inappropriate prolongation of dying" as the lowest of six options.

CONCLUSION

A majority of adult cancer patients surveyed in this study wanted a truthful disclosure about their disease prognosis and expressed a preference for hospital-based care at end-of-life. Healthcare providers should find ways to tailor prognostic information to patients' expressed information needs.

Relationships between personal attitudes about death and communication with terminally ill patients: How oncology clinicians grapple with mortality

OBJECTIVE

Clinician discomfort with death may affect care of patients but has not been well-studied. This study explores oncology clinicians' attitudes surrounding their own death and how these attitudes both affect and are affected by their care of dying patients and their communication with them.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews with physicians (n=25), nurse practitioners (n=7), and physician assistants (n=1) in medical or hematologic oncology clinical practices about communication styles, care of terminally ill patients, and personal perspectives about mortality.

RESULTS

Clinicians described three communication styles used with patients about death and dying: direct, indirect, or selectively direct. Most reported an acceptance of their mortality that was "conditional," meaning that that they could not fully know how they would respond if actually terminally ill. For many clinicians, caring for dying patients affected their outlook on life and death, and their own perspectives on life and death affected their approach to caring for dying patients.

CONCLUSION

An awareness of personal mortality may help clinicians to discuss death more openly with patients and to provide better care.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Efforts to promote self-awareness and communication training are key to facilitating clear communication with and compassionate care of terminally ill patients.

Do Cancer Patients Prefer to Know the Diagnosis? A Descriptive Study Among Iranian Patients

BACKGROUND

There are important differences regarding cancer disclosure in various geographical populations (Europeans, Western Asia, Eastern Asia), depending on multiple sociocultural factors, and therefore, there is no standard protocol on this issue, especially in Iran.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the amount of information that Iranian patients have and their preference for the disclosure of the cancer diagnosis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this cross sectional descriptive research, patients admitted in the oncology departments of 3 referral medical centers, Imam Hussein, Shohada-e-Tajrish and Modarres, in Tehran, from March 2007 to April 2008, were questioned about their awareness and knowledge regarding their diagnosis. Two different structured questionnaires were designed for the people who know and who didn't know their diagnosis. For the former, the survey concerned their psychological reactions to their situations, whether they would prefer to know about their diagnosis and by whom they are preferred to be informed .For the latter, the questionnaire included their preference whether to know the diagnosis and their current emotional state. Descriptive statistics and chi square test was applied to analyze gathering Data, using SPSS version 14.

RESULTS

60.3% of the patients knew their diagnosis. Among the subjects who did not know their diagnosis, 88% preferred to be more informed about their diagnosis and 68% had some psychological reaction to their situations. Among the subjects who knew their diagnosis, 92.1 % preferred to know their diagnosis, 73.6% preferred to be informed directly by their physicians. Following the diagnostic disclosure, 81.5% reported that they had felt nervous, anxious and worried.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of Iranian patients with malignancy want to know the truth and they prefer to be informed directly by their doctors.

A qualitative study of women's experiences of healthcare, treatment and support for metastatic breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this qualitative research was to identify the healthcare, information and support needs of women living with metastatic breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 18 women. Women were asked about their experiences of living with metastatic breast cancer and their information and support needs.

RESULTS

Women valued relationships with their healthcare professionals, particularly their oncologists. They wanted more attention paid to side-effects of ongoing treatments, which had a negative impact on their health. While oncologists were a primary source of information, women also drew on other sources. There were mixed findings about the value of support groups, with women preferring to seek alternative sources of social support.

CONCLUSION

A diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer brings heightened reliance on healthcare professionals to respond to women's needs in a way that is different to that required with a diagnosis of early breast cancer.

Initiating decision-making conversations in palliative care: an ethnographic discourse analysis

Background

Conversations about end-of-life care remain challenging for health care providers. The tendency to delay conversations about care options represents a barrier that impedes the ability of terminally-ill patients to participate in decision-making. Family physicians with a palliative care practice are often responsible for discussing end-of-life care preferences with patients, yet there is a paucity of research directly observing these interactions. In this study, we sought to explore how patients and family physicians initiated decision-making conversations in the context of a community hospital-based palliative care service.

Methods

This qualitative study combined discourse analysis with ethnographic methods. The field research lasted one year, and data were generated through participant observation and audio-recordings of consultations. A total of 101 consultations were observed longitudinally between 18 patients, 6 family physicians and 2 pivot nurses. Data analysis consisted in exploring the different types of discourses initiating decision-making conversations and how these discourses were affected by the organizational context in which they took place.

Results

The organization of care had an impact on decision-making conversations. The timing and origin of referrals to palliative care shaped whether patients were still able to participate in decision-making, and the decisions that remained to be made. The type of decisions to be made also shaped how conversations were initiated. Family physicians introduced decision-making conversations about issues needing immediate attention, such as symptom management, by directly addressing or eliciting patients’ complaints. When decisions involved discussing impending death, decision-making conversations were initiated either indirectly, by prompting the patients to express their understanding of the disease and its progression, or directly, by providing a justification for broaching a difficult topic.

Conclusions

Decision-making conversations and the initiation thereof were framed by the organization of care and the referral process prior to initial encounters. While symptom management was taken for granted as part of health care professionals’ expected role, engaging in decisions regarding preparation for death implicitly remained under patients’ control. This work makes important clinical contributions by exposing the rhetorical function of family physicians’ discourse when introducing palliative care decisions.

How to communicate with patients about future illness progression and end of life: a systematic review

Background

Conversation and discourse analytic research has yielded important evidence about skills needed for effective, sensitive communication with patients about illness progression and end of life.

Objectives

To: ▸ Locate and synthesise observational evidence about how people communicate about sensitive future matters;

▸ Inform practice and policy on how to provide opportunities for talk about these matters;

▸ Identify evidence gaps.

Design

Systematic review of conversation/discourse analytic studies of recorded interactions in English, using a bespoke appraisal approach and aggregative synthesis.

Results

19 publications met the inclusion criteria. We summarised findings in terms of eight practices: ‘fishing questions’—open questions seeking patients’ perspectives (5/19); indirect references to difficult topics (6/19); linking to what a patient has already said—or noticeably not said (7/19); hypothetical questions (12/19); framing difficult matters as universal or general (4/19); conveying sensitivity via means other than words, for example, hesitancy, touch (4/19); encouraging further talk using means other than words, for example, long silences (2/19); and steering talk from difficult/negative to more optimistic aspects (3/19).

Conclusions

Practices vary in how strongly they encourage patients to engage in talk about matters such as illness progression and dying. Fishing questions and indirect talk make it particularly easy to avoid engaging—this may be appropriate in some circumstances. Hypothetical questions are more effective in encouraging on-topic talk, as is linking questions to patients’ cues. Shifting towards more ‘optimistic’ aspects helps maintain hope but closes off further talk about difficulties: practitioners may want to delay doing so. There are substantial gaps in evidence.

Advanced cancer patients' and caregivers' use of a Question Prompt List

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to provide insight into how advanced cancer patients and their caregivers use a Question Prompt List (QPL) during a consultation and for preparation for future consultations.

METHODS

Audiotaped consultations and follow-up phone calls of 28 advanced cancer patients were coded and content analyzed. Questions asked and concerns expressed in consultations were coded for initiator, content, inclusion in the QPL and exact wording. Patients' reported and future use of the QPL were coded from the phone calls.

RESULTS

The majority of patients reported that they used the QPL. Questions asked by patients and caregivers predominately coincided with questions from the prognosis section of the QPL. Questions were rarely asked literally from the QPL, instead questions were tailored to patients' own circumstances.

CONCLUSION

QPLs are useful to stimulate discussion on prognosis among advanced cancer patients and caregivers. Patients tailored questions from the QPL to their own circumstances which may suggest high involvement and engagement. The development of more specific tailored communication interventions for advanced cancer patients is warranted.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Implementation of QPLs in the advanced cancer setting may be beneficial for patients, caregivers and healthcare providers to facilitate discussion of topics such as prognosis.

Oncologists' perspectives on concurrent palliative care in a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to understand oncology clinicians' perspectives about the care of advanced cancer patients following the completion of the ENABLE II (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends) randomized clinical trial (RCT) of a concurrent oncology palliative care model.

METHOD

This was a qualitative interview study of 35 oncology clinicians about their approach to patients with advanced cancer and the effect of the ENABLE II RCT.

RESULTS

Oncologists believed that integrating palliative care at the time of an advanced cancer diagnosis enhanced patient care and complemented their practice. Self-assessment of their practice with advanced cancer patients comprised four themes: (1) treating the whole patient, (2) focusing on quality versus quantity of life, (3) “some patients just want to fight,” and (4) helping with transitions; timing is everything. Five themes comprised oncologists' views on the complementary role of palliative care: (1) “refer early and often,” (2) referral challenges: “Palliative” equals “hospice”; “Heme patients are different,” (3) palliative care as consultants or co-managers, (4) palliative care “shares the load,” and (5) ENABLE II facilitated palliative care integration.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Oncologists described the RCT as holistic and complementary, and as a significant factor in adopting concurrent care as a standard of care.

Do we get it right? Radiation oncology outpatients' perceptions of the patient centredness of life expectancy disclosure

OBJECTIVE

A patient-centred approach to discussing life expectancy with cancer patients is recommended in Western countries. However, this approach to eliciting and meeting patient preferences can be challenging for clinicians. The aims of this study were the following: (i) to examine cancer patients' preferences for life expectancy disclosure; and (ii) to explore agreement between cancer patients' preferences for, and perceived experiences of, life expectancy disclosure.

METHODS

Cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy treatment in metropolitan Australia completed a cross-sectional touchscreen computer survey including optional questions about their life expectancy disclosure preferences and experiences.

RESULTS

Of the 208 respondents, 178 (86%) indicated that they would prefer their clinician to ask them before discussing life expectancy, and 30 (14%) indicated that they would prefer others (i.e. clinicians, family) to decide whether they were given life expectancy information. Of the 175 respondents who were classified as having a self- determined or other-determined disclosure experience, 105 (60%) reported an experience of life expectancy disclosure that was in accordance with their preferences. Cohen's κ was -0.04 (95% CI, -0.17, 0.08), indicating very poor agreement between patients' preferences for and perceived experiences of life expectancy disclosure (p = 0.74).

CONCLUSIONS

In light of patient-centred prognosis disclosure guidelines, our findings of a majority preference for, and experience of, a self-determined approach to life expectancy disclosure amongst radiation oncology patients are encouraging. However, poor agreement between preferences and experiences highlights that additional effort from clinicians is required in order to achieve a truly patient-centred approach to life expectancy disclosure.

The validity of education and guidance for clinical communication in cancer care: evidence-based practice will depend on practice-based evidence

OBJECTIVE

The validity of clinical communication skills education and guidance for cancer care is sometimes portrayed as self-evident. This view needs re-examination in light of critiques of the concept of communication skills.

METHODS

We critically examine principles that steer communication teaching and guidance in cancer care and draw on research that can inform the next generation of development in this field.

RESULTS

Unlike other areas of clinical skills, communication is highly contested. Any instance of communication is open to multiple interpretations; expert principles of communication are imprecise and often contradictory. The concept of communication skills will constrain development, because of its implication that universal, expert-defined components of communication are the building blocks of clinical relationships. Research on communication in practice indicates insights that could enrich future education and guidance.

CONCLUSIONS

Communication experts have more to learn from practitioners and patients than is commonly appreciated. Inductive, qualitative research should incorporate patient and practitioner perspectives as well as observations of communication.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Solutions to communication dilemmas might be found in detailed study of communication in practice, rather than in current expert principles. Incorporating such evidence will help to ensure the continued authority of communication curricula and guidance as evidence-based and patient-centred.

Faith and protection: the construction of hope by parents of children with leukemia and their oncologists

BACKGROUND

Oncologists are criticized for fostering unrealistic hope in patients and families, but criticisms reflect a perspective that is oversimplified and "expert" guidance that is ambiguous or impractical. Our aim was to understand how pediatric oncologists manage parents' hope in practice and to evaluate how they address parents' needs.

METHODS

Participants were 53 parents and 12 oncologists whom they consulted across six U.K. centers. We audio recorded consultations approximately 1-2, 6, and 12 months after diagnosis. Parents were interviewed after each consultation to elicit their perspectives on the consultation and clinical relationship. Transcripts of consultations and interviews were analyzed qualitatively.

RESULTS

Parents needed hope in order to function effectively in the face of despair, and all wanted the oncologists to help them be hopeful. Most parents focused hope on the short term. They therefore needed oncologists to be authoritative in taking responsibility for the child's long-term survival while cushioning parents from information about longer-term uncertainties and being positive in providing information about short-term progress. A few parents who could not fully trust their oncologist were unable to hope.

CONCLUSION

Oncologists' pivotal role in sustaining hope was one that parents gave them. Most parents' "faith" in the oncologist allowed them to set aside, rather than deny, their fears about survival while investing their hopes in short-term milestones. Oncologists' behavior generally matched parents' needs, contradicting common criticisms of oncologists. Nevertheless, oncologists need to identify and address the difficulty that some parents have in fully trusting the oncologist and, consequently, being hopeful.

Ways of providing the patient with a prognosis: a terminology of employed strategies based on qualitative data

OBJECTIVE

To identify, denote, and structure strategies applied by physicians and patients when communicating information about prognosis.

METHODS

A descriptive qualitative study based on audiotaped physician-patient encounters between 23 haematologists and rheumatologists, and 89 patients in Oslo. Classification of identified prognostic sequences was based on consensus.

RESULTS

Physicians seldom initiated communication with patients explicitly to find out their overall preferences for prognostic information (metacommunication). Instead, they used sounding and implicit strategies such as invitations, implicatures, and non-specific information that might result in further disclosure of information if requested by the patients. In order to balance the obligation to promote hope and provide (true) information, they used strategies such as bad news/good news spirals, authentications, safeguardings, and softenings. Identified strategies applied by the patients to adjust the physician-initiated prognostic information to their needs were requests for specification, requests for optimism, and emotional warnings.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The study presents an empirically derived terminology so that clinicians and educators involved in medical communication can increase their awareness of prognostic communication. Based on qualitative data obtained from communication excerpts, we suggest that individual clinicians and researchers evaluate the possible benefits of more frequent use of metacommunication and explicit prognostic information.

Directly observed patient-physician discussions in palliative and end-of-life care: a systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVES

To review studies that used direct observation (i.e., videotaping or audiotaping) methods in palliative/end-of-life care communication research.

DESIGN

Descriptive thematic analysis.

SETTING

Multinational studies were conducted in both the outpatient and inpatient setting.

MEASUREMENTS

Extensive bibliographic searches (January 1, 1998 to July 31, 2009) of English-language literature involving physician-patient (or physician-family) interactions were conducted and augmented by reviews of reference listings. Three investigators independently abstracted key information from each article.

RESULTS

Of the 20 retained articles, most enrolled young-old participants (mean age, 60 years) who were white and had a cancer diagnosis. Patient/family participation rates ranged from 68% to 89% demonstrating feasibility of this approach when studying palliative/end-of-life care communication issues. Four common themes were identified: (1) physicians focus on medical/technical and avoid emotional/quality of life issues; (2) sensitive topics are perceived by physicians to take longer to discuss and often do take longer to discuss; (3) physicians dominate discussions; and (4) patient/family satisfaction is associated with supportive physician behaviors.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that direct observation methods can be feasibly used when studying physician-patient/physician-family communication in palliative/end-of-life care, but few investigations have utilized this approach. This article highlights areas that need improvement, including physicians' ability to address patient/family emotional issues and provide what patients and families find most satisfying (participation and support). A particular focus on older patients and patients with end-stage or late-stage chronic (noncancer) illness, the adaptation/application of existing communication measurement tools to capture palliative care communication issues, and development of corresponding outcome measures to assess impact is now needed.

Impact of physicians' personal discomfort and patient prognosis on discussion of fertility preservation with young cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to determine if physician's personal discomfort with the topic of FP and a patient's prognosis would have an impact on the likelihood of discussing FP with cancer patients.

METHODS

Data from larger studies of qualitative semi-structured interviews with pediatric and adult oncologists were analyzed using grounded theory and crystallizing immersion method to examine the themes of "personal comfort" and "patient prognosis" in relation to discussion.

RESULTS

Results showed that, across both physician types, the majority of respondents' personal comfort with the topic of FP was related to the likelihood of discussion. Personal discomfort manifested as: (a) lack of knowledge; (b) language/cultural barriers; (c) perception that subject of FP adds more stress to situation; (d) general uncertainty about success of FP methods. Data also indicate physicians do not feel discussions are appropriate for patients with poor prognosis.

CONCLUSION

Despite the ASCO guidelines suggesting physicians should discuss FP with all patients, the majority of physicians are not following these guidelines.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Improved training on recognition of such biases and communication strategies may improve the quality and frequency of such discussions. Involving the entire healthcare team in discussions may alleviate the need for physicians to have sole responsibility.

An experimental investigation of the dilemma of delivering bad news

OBJECTIVE

This randomly controlled experiment tested a theory of how experienced physicians solve the dilemma of communicating bad news by using implicit language.

METHODS

8 physicians delivered both bad and good news to 16 analogue patients. Microanalysis of their news delivery reliably identified departures from explicit language.

RESULTS

As predicted, the physicians used implicit language at a significantly higher rate when delivering bad news than good news. For bad news, they tended to use alternative terms for the diagnosis, to qualify their evaluation, to underemphasize certainty, and to subtly separate the patient from the disease. The evidence both within and after the interview indicated that recipients still understood the bad news.

CONCLUSION

(1) The skilful use of implicit language is a solution to the dilemma of honest but not harsh communication of bad news. (2) Experimental methods can complement surveys and qualitative studies for investigating bad news delivery by providing a theoretical foundation and controlled conditions.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Physicians can deliver bad news honestly without being blunt by skilfully incorporating implicit language. The theory, data, and examples presented here provide insights into the nature and functions of implicit language, from which students and practitioners can develop their individual styles.

Communication with relatives and collusion in palliative care: a cross-cultural perspective

Handling collusion among patients and family members is one of the biggest challenges that palliative care professionals face across cultures. Communication with patients and relatives can be complex particularly in filial cultures where families play an important role in illness management and treatment decision-making. Collusion comes in different forms and intensity and is often not absolute. Some illness-related issues may be discussed with the patient, whereas others are left unspoken. Particularly in palliative care, the transition from curative to palliative treatment and discussion of death and dying are often topics involving collusion. Communication patterns may also be influenced by age, gender, age, and family role. This paper outlines different types of collusion and how collusion manifests in Indian and Western cultures. In addition, promising avenues for future research are presented.

'It's going to shorten your life': framing of oncologist-patient communication about prognosis

In this qualitative study, we used grounded theory techniques to analyze transcripts of 29 first-time encounters between oncologists and patients referred to them with previously diagnosed, incurable cancer. We found that 23 (79%) of the transcripts included 166 examples of prognostic talk. The language used ranged from general to personal, with 25% of statements mentioning no patients (e.g., 'the tumor will usually come back'), 13% mentioning patients other than the current patient (e.g., 'some patients with tumor response will be around for 2-5 years'), 11% mentioning the current patient in the context of others (e.g., 'on average, people like you live a couple of years'), and 51% directly focusing on the patient (e.g., 'this thing's going to kill you eventually'). More statements pertained to treatment-related prognosis than to disease-related prognosis (67 versus 33%). While 31% of statements focused on negative outcomes (loss framing), the remainder either focused on positive outcomes (gain framing) or discussed a combination of positive and negative outcomes (mixed framing). When discussions focused on negative outcomes, general and indirect language was commonly used, perhaps to buffer the patient from news of the poor prognosis.

Patient-oncologist communication in advanced cancer: predictors of patient perception of prognosis

GOALS OF WORK

Advanced cancer patients' perceptions of prognosis, which are often overly optimistic compared to oncologist estimates, influence treatment preferences. The predictors of patients' perceptions and the effect of oncologist communication on patient understanding are unclear. This study was designed to identify the communication factors that influence patient-oncologist concordance about chance of cure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed audiorecorded encounters between 51 oncologists and 141 advanced cancer patients with good (n = 69) or poor (n = 72) concordance about chance of cure. Encounters were coded for communication factors that might influence oncologist-patient concordance, including oncologist statements of optimism and pessimism.

MAIN RESULTS

Oncologists made more statements of optimism (mean = 3.3 per encounter) than statements of pessimism (mean = 1.2 per encounter). When oncologists made at least one statement of pessimism, patients were more likely to agree with their oncologist's estimated chance of cure (OR = 2.59, 95%CI = 1.31-5.12). Statements of optimism and uncertainty were not associated with an increased likelihood that patients would agree or disagree with their oncologists about chance of cure.

CONCLUSIONS

Communication of pessimistic information to patients with advanced cancer increases the likelihood that patients will report concordant prognostic estimates. Communication of optimistic information does not have any direct effect. The best communication strategy to maximize patient knowledge for informed decision making while remaining sensitive to patients' emotional needs may be to emphasize optimistic aspects of prognosis while also consciously and clearly communicating pessimistic aspects of prognosis.