Question prompts to empower cancer patients: results of a randomized controlled trial

Optimizing the design and implementation of question prompt lists to support person-centred care: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Question prompt lists (QPLs) are lists of questions that patients may want to discuss with clinicians. QPLs support person-centred care and have been associated with many beneficial outcomes including improved patient question-asking, and the amount and quality of the information provided by clinicians. The purpose of this study was to review published research on QPLs to explore how QPL design and implementation can be optimized.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Joanna Briggs Database from inception to 8 May 2022, for English language studies of any design that evaluated QPLs. We used summary statistics and text to report study characteristics, and QPL design and implementation.

RESULTS

We included 57 studies published from 1988 to 2022 by authors in 12 countries on a range of clinical topics. Of those, 56% provided the QPL, but few described how QPLs were developed. The number of questions varied widely (range 9-191). Most QPLs were single-page handouts (44%) but others ranged from 2 to 33 pages. Most studies implemented a QPL alone with no other accompanying strategy; most often in a print format before consultations by mail (18%) or in the waiting room (66%). Both patients and clinicians identified numerous benefits to patients of QPLs (e.g., increased patient confidence to ask questions, and patient satisfaction with communication or care received; and reduced anxiety about health status or treatment). To support use, patients desired access to QPLs in advance of clinician visits, and clinicians desired information/training on how to use the QPL and answer questions. Most (88%) studies reported at least one beneficial impact of QPLs. This was true even for single-page QPLs with few questions unaccompanied by other implementation strategies. Despite favourable views of QPLs, few studies assessed outcomes amongst clinicians.

CONCLUSION

This review identified QPL characteristics and implementation strategies that may be associated with beneficial outcomes. Future research should confirm these findings via systematic review and explore the benefits of QPLs from the clinician's perspective.

PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Following this review, we used the findings to develop a QPL on hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and interviewed women and clinicians about QPL design including content, format, enablers and barriers of use, and potential outcomes including beneficial impacts and possible harms (will be published elsewhere).

Encouraging Patients to Ask Questions: Development and Pilot Testing of a Question Prompt List for Patients Undergoing a Biopsy for Suspected Prostate Cancer

This study assessed the acceptability and feasibility of a question prompt list (QPL) to facilitate informed treatment decision-making in men with suspected localised prostate cancer, which involves values-based choices between options with similar efficacy but different side effects. The QPL was developed through iterative consultation with consumers, clinicians and researchers. Acceptability was assessed using study-specific questions regarding QPL satisfaction and usefulness and qualitative interviews. Feasibility was determined via the proportion of men given the QPL according to medical records and the completion of standardised measures of decisional outcomes. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and univariate statistics. Qualitative data were thematically analysed. Fifty-two men consented; 34 provided data for analysis. The QPL recipients reported moderate-high content satisfaction (70.6%) and perceived usefulness in guiding appointments when receiving biopsy results (64.7%). Two main qualitative themes also indicated the QPL acceptability: (1) the freedom to ask-acceptable timing, flexible usage and usefulness of the QPL, and (2) satisfaction with the QPL content. However, only 18.4% of eligible men received the QPL, indicating limited feasibility. The QPL is safe and acceptable, but further research is needed regarding how to facilitate the uptake of the question prompt list in clinical practice.

Effectiveness of question prompt lists in patients with breast cancer: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of a question prompt list (QPL) in decision self-efficacy, decision-making participation, patient-physician communication, decisional conflict or regret, and health status in patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

A total of 240 patients with breast cancer were randomly assigned to a QPL group or control group (n = 120 each). The intervention and control groups received an additional educational QPL booklet and routine care, respectively.

RESULTS

The intervention group exhibited significant improvements in decision self-efficacy, perceived patient-physician interactions, and patient-physician communication compared with the control group. Multilevel modeling analyses revealed significant group-time interaction effects on decision self-efficacy (β = 9.99, P < 0.01), perceived patient-physician interactions (β = 8.10, P < 0.01), patient-physician communication (β = 5.02, P < 0.01), and anxiety status (β = -3.78, P < 0.05). The QPL intervention exerted more favorable effects than routine care, with repeated measurements of the same patients and the data of patients under the care of the same surgeons accounted for.

CONCLUSIONS

The QPL intervention exerted multidimensional effects on decision-making outcomes among patients with breast cancer.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians can integrate a QPL into routine care for patients with breast cancer.

Patients' challenges, competencies, and perceived support in dealing with information needs - A qualitative analysis in patients with breast and gynecological cancer

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate challenges, competencies, and support in breast and gynecological cancer patients when dealing with information needs and how health literacy as an interplay of these factors might be improved.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients in acute care (n = 19), undergoing rehabilitation (n = 20) or attending self-help groups (n = 16). Interviews were analyzed using content analysis.

RESULTS

Challenges: gain information according to own needs, internet as information source, information evaluation and decisions, doctor-patient communication, situationally limited information processing, difficult access to information. Competencies: self-regulation of information needs, media and social competencies, communication skills in the doctor-patient conversation, internet competencies, self-directed decisions according to own needs, interest/self-efficacy, previous knowledge, trust in the doctor.

SUPPORT

by professionals (e.g., patient-centered communication), relatives (e.g., support during consultations), peers (e.g., exchange), facilities (e.g., clinics).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide insight into challenges and competencies relevant to patients' health literacy and the influence of support. The individuality of the interplay highlights the relevance of an active patient role and patient-centered care.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Patients' health literacy should be improved in (psycho)oncological work by both reducing challenges (e.g., by communication skills training, involving relatives) and promoting competencies (e.g., by needs- and competence-oriented information offers).

Helping Patients Communicate With Oncologists When Cancer Treatment Resistance Occurs to Develop, Test, and Implement a Patient Communication Aid: Sequential Collaborative Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Most cancer-related deaths result from disseminated diseases that develop resistance to anticancer treatments. Inappropriate communication in this challenging situation may result in unmet patient information and support needs. Patient communication aids such as question prompt lists (QPLs) may help.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to develop and pilot-test a specific QPL in the following two contrasting clinical contexts in France after cancer resistance has developed: triple-negative and luminal B metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and metastatic uveal melanoma (MUM).

METHODS

A sequential study design with a mixed methods collaborative approach will be applied. The first step aims to build a specific QPL. Step 1a will explore oncologist-patient communication issues from oncology professionals' interviews (n=20 approximately). Step 1b will appraise information and support needs experienced by patients with MBC or MUM both quantitatively (n=80) and qualitatively (n=40 approximately). These data will be used to develop and pilot-test a QPL specific to patients with cancer experiencing initial or acquired resistance to treatment. We expect to obtain a core QPL that comprises questions and concerns commonly expressed by patients with resistant cancer and is complemented by specific issues for either MBC or MUM cancer sites. In step 1c, 2 focus groups of patients with any type of metastatic cancer (n=4) and health care professionals (n=4) will be conducted to revise the content of a preliminary QPL and elaborate an acceptable and feasible clinical implementation. In step 1d, the content of the QPL version 1 and implementation guidance will be validated using a Delphi process. Step 2 will pilot-test the QPL version 1 in real practice with patients with MBC or MUM (n=80). Clinical utility will be assessed by comparing responses to questionnaires administered in step 1b (QPL-naive historical control group) and step 2 (QPL intervention group).

RESULTS

This study received grants in March and December 2019 and was approved by the French national ethics committee in July 2019. As of October 2021, interviews with oncology professionals have been conducted and analyzed (N=26 to reach saturation), and 39 and 27 patients with MBC and MUM, respectively, have been recruited.

CONCLUSIONS

A clinically and culturally tailored QPL is expected to facilitate patients' participation in consultations, improve oncologists' responses to patients' information and support needs, and thus foster patients' psychological adjustment to the diagnosis and follow-up of cancer resistance to treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04118062; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04118062.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/26414.

A Question Prompt List for Advanced Cancer Patients Promoting Advance Care Planning: A French Randomized Trial

CONTEXT

Advance care planning is essential to enable informed medical decisions to be made and to reduce aggressiveness in end-of-life (EOL) care.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore whether a question prompt list (QPL) adapted to French language and culture could promote discussions, particularly on prognosis and EOL issues, among advanced cancer patients attending outpatient palliative care (PC) consultations.

METHODS

In this multicenter randomized study, patients assigned to the intervention arm received a QPL to help them prepare for the next consultation one month later. The main inclusion criteria were advanced cancer patients referred to the PC team with an estimated life expectancy of less than one year. The primary endpoint was the number of questions raised, globally and by topic. The secondary objectives were the impact of the QPL on psychological symptoms, quality of life, satisfaction with care, and coping styles at two months.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 71) in the QPL arm asked more questions (mean 21.8 vs. 18.2, P = 0.03) than patients in the control arm (n = 71), particularly on PC (5.6 vs. 3.7, P = 0.012) and EOL issues (2.2 vs. 1, P = 0.018) but not on prognosis (4.3 vs. 3.6, not specified). At two months, there was no change in anxiety, depression, or quality of life in either arm; patient satisfaction with doctors' technical skills was scored higher (P = 0.024), and avoidance coping responses were less frequent (self-distraction, P = 0.015; behavioral disengagement, P = 0.025) in the QPL arm.

CONCLUSION

Questions on PC and EOL issues in outpatient PC consultations were more frequent, and patient satisfaction was better when a QPL was made available before the consultation.

[Needs and burdens of palliative care patients with advanced and/or metastatic head and neck tumors]

Hintergrund

Neue Therapieformen ermöglichen auch bei Patienten mit fortgeschrittenen und metastasierten Kopf-Hals-Tumoren gute Behandlungsansätze. Gespräche über das Lebensende, vorausschauende Versorgungsplanung und auch palliativmedizinische Konzepte geraten dadurch oft in den Hintergrund.

Ziel der Arbeit

Analyse von Symptomen, Belastungen sowie dem Vorliegen von Vorsorgedokumenten, von stationär palliativmedizinisch mitbetreuten Patienten durch Selbsteinschätzung. Erhebung der Integration der spezialisierten Palliativversorgung in die Versorgung stationär verstorbener Patienten anhand des Qualitätsindikators nach Earle.

Material und Methoden

Retrospektive Analyse der vom Palliativdienst mitbetreuten Patienten mit Kopf-Hals-Tumoren durch Nutzung des standardisierten IPOS Fragebogens.

Ergebnisse

Die häufigsten physischen Symptome waren „Schwäche“ (77 %), „Appetitlosigkeit“ (65 %) und „eingeschränkte Mobilität“ (65 %). „Schmerzen“ wurden von 42 % der Patienten angegeben. Die häufigsten emotionalen und psychosozialen Belastungen waren „Traurigkeit“ (97 %) und „Sorgen des Patienten“ (94 %), die „fehlende Möglichkeit Gefühle“ zu teilen (77 %), „unzureichende Informiertheit“ (85 %) und „organisatorische Probleme“ (77 %). Bei 23 % der Patienten lagen Vorsorgedokumente vor. Das Qualitätsziel nach Earle wurde nicht erreicht.

Diskussion

Die Patienten berichten in der Auswertung in hohem Maß Symptome und Belastungen, am häufigsten im emotionalen Bereich und bezüglich kommunikativer und praktischer Bedürfnisse. Hier zeigt sich möglicherweise auch ein Gesprächsbedarf über Wünsche und Vorstellungen im Hinblick auf das Lebensende. Palliativdienste sollten deshalb besonders auf die psychosozialen Bedürfnisse einzugehen.