Cancer literacy - Informing patients and implementing shared decision making

The Encounter of Two Worlds: Divided Narratives of Decision-Making on Cancer Treatment Between Physicians and Patients

INTRODUCTION

Divided narratives pose long-standing difficulties in physician and patient communication. In decision-making on cancer treatment, divided narratives between physicians and patients hinder mutual understanding and agreement over the illness and its treatment. For effective decision-making on treatments, it is necessary to investigate the similarities and differences in these divided narratives.

METHODS

This study adopted a qualitative research design of narrative inquiry to examine the data, which included interviews with 32 cancer patients and 16 paired physicians in two hospitals in China. Data analysis was conducted using grounded theory to generate findings.

RESULTS

Both physicians and patients were concerned about goals and obstacles to their decision-making on cancer treatment. Four common aspects of goal setting were identified from the divided narratives: decision pools, treatment goals, identity practice and preferred identity. Four common obstacles were identified: pains and trust, communication gap, financial issues and complex family. However, the meanings attached to these eight aspects differed between physicians and patients.

CONCLUSION

Cancer treatment decision-making is an encounter of the scientific world and lifeworld. A divided narrative approach can identify the similarities and differences in the decision-making on cancer treatment between physicians and patients. Physicians generally adopt a rational decision-making approach, whereas patients generally adopt a relational decision-making approach. Despite the common concerns in their goals and obstacles, physicians and patients differed in their contextualized interpretations, which demonstrates the physicians' and the patients' pursuit of preferred identities in decision-making. The results of this study provide a new perspective to treatment decision-making, emphasizing the importance of narrative integration in reaching mutual agreement.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The findings were shared with 15 cancer patients and caregivers for feedback and advice in June 2024. This study was also presented at the international conferences of COMET (International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Communication, Medicine, and Ethics) and ICCH (International Conference on Communication in Healthcare) 2023 for continuous feedback and comments.

Communication in oncology between healthcare providers, patients, the scientific community, and the media: recommendations from the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM)

AIM

To identify barriers between health and communication in oncology in order to promote the best possible practice. The areas of communication to be focused on are communication directly with the patient, communication within the scientific community, and communication with the media.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A working group including eminent experts from the national mass media, healthcare system, and patients' advocacy has been established on behalf of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), with the aim of developing suitable recommendations for the best communication in oncology. A literature search has been conducted selecting primary studies related to the best practices applied to communication in oncology. Subsequent to having identified the most representative statements, through a consensus conference using the RAND/University of California Los Angeles modified Delphi method, the panel evaluated the relevance of each statement to support useful strategies to develop effective communication between oncologist physicians and patients, communication within the scientific community, and communication with media outlets, including social media.

RESULTS

A total of 292 statements have been extracted from 100 articles. Following an evaluation of relevance, it was found that among the 142 statements achieving the highest scores, 30 of these have been considered of particular interest by the panel.

CONCLUSIONS

This consensus and the arising document represent an attempt to strengthen the strategic alliance between key figures in communication, identifying high-impact recommendations for the management of communication in oncology with respect to patients, the wider scientific community, and the media.

Cross-sectional study of therapy-related expectations/concerns of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and physicians in Japan

OBJECTIVE

To achieve patient-centricity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment, it is essential to clarify the differences in perspectives between patients and physicians. This cross-sectional analysis of a web survey aimed to clarify the differences in expectations and concerns between mRCC patients and physicians regarding systemic mRCC therapy in Japan.

METHODS

Surveys from 83 patients and 165 physicians were analyzed.

RESULTS

The top three most significant differences in expectations of systemic therapy between patients and physicians (patient-based physician value) were "Chance of achieving treatment-free status" (-30.1%, p < 0.001), "Longer survival" (+25.8%, p < 0.001), and "Chance of eliminating all evidence of disease" (-25.6%, p < 0.001). The top three most significant differences in concerns for systemic therapy between patients and physicians (patient-based physician value) were "Lack of efficacy" (+36.1%, p < 0.001), "Lack of knowledge of treatment" (-28.2%, p < 0.001), and "Daily activities affected by side effects" (+22.3%, p < 0.001). Diarrhea, fatigue/malaise, and nausea/vomiting were patients' most distressing adverse events; 50.6% of patients had difficulty telling their physicians about adverse events such as fatigue, anxiety, and depression.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated a gap between patients with mRCC and physicians in their expectations and concerns for systemic therapy. Japanese patients with mRCC suffer from a number of adverse events, some of which are not shared with physicians. This study highlights the importance of communicating well with patients in clinical practice to achieve patient-centricity in systemic treatment for mRCC.

Interprofessional follow-up of patients with cancer in France (the SINPATIC study): a preliminary, qualitative study of the patient's perspective

BACKGROUND

In 2020, 19.2 million people were diagnosed with cancer, and nearly 10 million cancer patients died worldwide. An effective cancer care pathway must be based on coordination, multidisciplinarity, a personalized approach, and collaboration between stakeholders. Follow-up can be improved by good collaboration and communication between GPs and the cancer care team at a common level of organization.

OBJECTIVES

To study patients with solid cancers and assess their perceptions of the care pathway, the roles of the healthcare professionals involved, and interprofessional collaboration.

METHODS

In a preliminary, qualitative study (part of the SINPATIC study of general practitioners, oncologists, nurses, and patients), adult patients with cancer in the Paris area of France were interviewed between January and April 2018. Using purposive sampling, 10 patients were recruited from hospital departments and primary care. An interview guide explored 3 themes: the care pathway, the stakeholders' roles in follow-up, and interprofessional collaboration.

RESULTS

For patients, dealing with cancer is a complex process of awareness, care provision, decision-making, task assignment, a lack of clarification of professional roles, a piecemeal announcement of the diagnosis of cancer by several stakeholders, organizational and administrative difficulties, non-formal collaboration in inertia (tending towards collaboration under construction), and with cancer follow-up that was usually parallel, sometimes shared, rarely sequential.

CONCLUSION

This SINPATIC substudy provided us a better understanding of the complexity of the patient care pathway. Looking forward, the present findings might stimulate thoughts on the design and development of interventional studies.

How Can We Improve Patient-Clinician Communication for Men Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer?

Background and objective

The ability of health care professionals to communicate with patients compassionately and effectively is crucial for shared decision-making, but little research has investigated patient-clinician communication. As part of PIONEER-an international Big Data Consortium led by the European Association of Urology to answer key questions for men with prostate cancer (PCa), funded through the IMI2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement 777492- we investigated communication between men diagnosed with PCa and the health care professional(s) treating them across Europe.

Methods

We used the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Communication 26, which was shared via the PIONEER and patient organisations on March 11, 2022. We sought men who spoke French, Italian, Spanish, German, Dutch, or English who were diagnosed with PCa and were undergoing or had already received treatment for their PCa.

Results and limitations

A total of 372 men reported that they communicated with their clinician during either the diagnostic or the treatment period. Overall, the majority of participants reported positive experiences. However, important opportunities to enhance communication were identified, particularly with regard to correcting misunderstandings, understanding the patient's preferred approach to information presentation, addressing challenging questions, supporting the patient's comprehension of information, attending to the patient's emotional needs, and assessing what information had already been given to patients about their disease and treatment, and how much of it was understood.

Conclusions and clinical implications

These results help us to identify gaps and barriers to shared treatment decision making. This knowledge will help devise measures to improve patient-health care professional communication in the PCa setting.

Patient summary

As part of the PIONEER initiative, we investigated the communication between men diagnosed with prostate cancer and their health care professionals across Europe. A total of 372 men from six different countries participated in the study. Most participants reported positive experiences, but areas where communication could be improved were identified. These included addressing misunderstandings, tailoring the presentation of information to the patient's preferences, handling difficult questions, supporting emotional needs, and assessing the patient's understanding of their diagnosis and treatment.

Shared decision making with breast cancer patients - does it work? Results of the cluster-randomized, multicenter DBCG RT SDM trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Shared decision making (SDM) is a patient engaging process advocated especially for preference-sensitive decisions, such as adjuvant treatment after breast cancer. An increasing call for patient engagement in decision making highlights the need for a systematic SDM approach. The objective of this trial was to investigate whether the Decision Helper (DH), an in-consultation patient decision aid, increases patient engagement in decisions regarding adjuvant whole breast irradiation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Oncologists at four radiotherapy units were randomized to practice SDM using the DH versus usual practice. Patient candidates for adjuvant whole breast irradiation after breast conserving surgery for node-negative breast cancer were eligible. The primary endpoint was patient-reported engagement in the decision process assessed with the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) (range 0-100, 4 points difference considered clinical relevant). Other endpoints included oncologist-reported patient engagement, decisional conflict, fear of cancer recurrence, and decision regret after 6 months.

RESULTS

Of the 674 included patients, 635 (94.2%) completed the SDM-Q-9. Patients in the intervention group reported higher level of engagement (median 80; IQR 68.9 to 94.4) than the control group (71.1; IQR 55.6 to 82.2; p < 0.0001). Oncologist-reported patient engagement was higher in the invention group (93.3; IQR 82.2 to 100) compared to control group (73.3; IQR 60.0 to 84.4) (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Patient engagement in medical decision making was significantly improved with the use of an in-consultation patient decision aid compared to standard. The DH on adjuvant whole breast irradiation is now recommended as standard of care in the Danish guideline.

Implementing the European code of cancer practice in rural settings

Existing evidence often indicates higher cancer incidence and mortality rates, later diagnosis, lower screening uptake and poorer long-term survival for people living in rural compared to more urbanised areas. Despite wide inequities and variation in cancer care and outcomes across Europe, much of the scientific literature explicitly exploring the impact of rurality on cancer continues to come from Australia and North America. The European Code of Cancer Practice or "The Code" is a citizen and patient-centred statement of the most salient requirements for good clinical cancer practice and has been extensively co-produced by cancer patients, cancer professionals and patient advocates. It contains 10 key overarching Rights that a cancer patient should expect from their healthcare system, regardless of where they live and has been strongly endorsed by professional and patient cancer organisations as well as the European Commission. In this article, we use these 10 fundamental Rights as a framework to argue that (i) the issues and needs identified in The Code are generally more profound for rural people with cancer; (ii) addressing these issues is also more challenging in rural contexts; (iii) interventions and support must explicitly account for the unique needs of rural residents living with and affected by cancer and (iv) new innovative approaches are urgently required to successfully overcome the challenges faced by rural people with cancer and their caregivers. Despite equitable healthcare being a key European policy focus, the needs of rural people living with cancer have largely been neglected.

Cancer Health Literacy and Its Correlated Factors in the United Arab Emirates-A Cross Sectional Study

INTRODUCTION

Cancer Health literacy (CHL) is the health literacy related to cancer knowledge, prevention, treatment, screening, and access to services. It is an important indicator of people's adherence to screening and preventive measures, which helps to reduce the incidence and prevalence of cancer. The study assessed the CHL level and its association with relevant socio-demographic characteristics and sources of information among primary health care patients and visitors in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

METHODS

A cross-sectional study recruited survey participants who consented to respond to an interviewer-administered questionnaire. The assessment of CHL was done by using 15 questions. CHL level was measured as a median score and also categorized as poor/inadequate, moderate, good/excellent. Nominal logistic regression was used to analyze the relationship between CHL categories and participants' sociodemographic characteristics and CHL sources of information.

RESULTS

Of the total 492 participants, 45.5% were young adults (30-39 years old), 32.9% were males, and 70.8% were UAE nationals. The overall median CHL score was 8.0 (IQR = 5.0-10). 33.7% of the participants had a poor/inadequate level of CHL, 49.6% had a moderate level and 16.7% had a good to excellent level of CHL. 76.9% of the participants knew the importance of early cancer screening tests, 72.7% acknowledged the metastatic capacity of cancer, and the protective factors of cancer, especially, in colon cancer (71.7%). A high proportion of participants received health information about cancer via the internet (50.7%), television (45.3%), social media (40.2%), and doctors (43.6%). Nationality other than UAE (aOR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.03-2.56, P = .038), having university education (aOR = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.21-3.99, P = .010) compared to those with lower than high school, and having a family history of cancer (aOR = 2.42, 95% CI = 1.33-4.41, P = .004) were positively associated with CHL. Older age (aOR = .36, 95% CI = .17-.75, P = .007 for 50-59 years, and aOR = .29, 95% CI = .11-.82, P = .019) for 60-69 years, higher-income (aOR = .57, 95% CI = .33-.99, P = .047 for 10,000-19,999 AED; aOR = .53, 95% CI = .33-.88, P = .013 for ≥20,000) compared with those earning <10,000 AED were negatively associated with CHL.

CONCLUSIONS

CHL among the resident UAE population was moderately adequate, therefore implementation of awareness campaigns seems to be warranted. Moreover, evaluation research targeting the CHL impact on cancer prevention practices and screening is also advocated.

Brain Tumor at Diagnosis: From Cognition and Behavior to Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

The present narrative review aims to discuss cognitive-emotional-behavioral symptoms in adults with brain tumors at the time of diagnosis.

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched considering glioma, pituitary adenoma, and meningioma in adulthood as pathologies, together with cognitive, neuropsychological, or behavioral aspects.

RESULTS

Although a significant number of studies describe cognitive impairment after surgery or treatment in adults with brain tumors, only few focus on cognitive-emotional-behavioral symptoms at diagnosis. Furthermore, the importance of an effective communication and its impact on patients' quality of life and compliance with treatment are seldom discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Adults with brain tumors have needs in terms of cognitive-emotional-behavioral features that are detectable at the time of diagnosis; more research is needed to identify effective communication protocols in order to allow a higher perceived quality of life in these patients.