Implementing consultation audio-recordings and question prompt lists into routine cancer care: How can we address healthcare providers' barriers?

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.

Gynaecological Cancers in India: The Less Heard Perspectives of Healthcare Providers

There has been mounting evidence on the role of healthcare providers in chronic illnesses such as cancer. The specific complexities in their roles to enable health are less heard. Gynaecological cancers have several undercurrents beyond the obvious. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with healthcare providers in Southern India (n = 35) and the data presented in this article were collected as a part of a larger study on the role of communication in the management of gynaecological cancers in India. Thematic analysis of the qualitative data provided information on the providers' perspectives of gynaecological cancers. Patient numbers, cost, time, cultural norms, context, and institutional constraints in cancer care provision are just some of the factors impacting care provision. Healthcare providers are typically acknowledged for the criticality of their roles in the continuum of care. However, our research suggests that the psychological harm and challenges they themselves may face in providing that care are severely neglected. Through listening to healthcare provider voices, clear solutions emerge to better support the practice of those who are responsible for cancer care.

Oncology nurse perceptions about life expectancy discussions: a cross-sectional study exploring what patients want to know, and why doctors don't disclose

Background: Sensitive and patient-centred discussion about life expectancy has clear benefits for patients with advanced cancer and their families. The perceptions of oncology nurses about disclosure of life expectancy, and the barriers to disclosure, have rarely been explored. Objectives/Aims/Hypotheses: To examine oncology nurses' perceptions of the: (1) proportion of patients with advanced cancer who want, receive and understand estimates of life expectancy; (2) reasons why doctors may not provide estimates of life expectancy. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Methods: Australian oncology nurses who were members of a professional society or worked at a participating metropolitan cancer centre were emailed a link to an anonymous online survey. Participants provided socio-demographic characteristics and their perceptions about the proportion of patients with advanced cancer who (a) want, (b) are provided with, (c) receive and (d) understand estimates of life expectancy, as well as the reasons estimates of life expectancy may not be provided. Results: A total of 104 nurses participated. While 51% of nurses perceived that most patients (>75%) want to be provided with an estimate of their life expectancy, 63% of nurses reported that <50% of patients were provided with an estimate. Further, 85% of nurses indicated that <50% of patients understand the estimate. The most frequent reason nurses perceived doctors did not provide an estimate of life expectancy was because the doctor didn't have an accurate idea of life expectancy (80.8%). Almost one-fifth of nurses (18.3%) thought that doctors did not provide estimates because they felt it was not their responsibility to do so. Conclusions: Strategies to ensure a patient-centred approach to life expectancy discussions with patients with advanced cancer are urgently needed. Impact statement: Oncology nurses perceive that many patients with advanced cancer are not provided with an accurate estimate of their life expectancy and few understand the information provided to them.

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.

Preferences for life expectancy discussions following diagnosis with a life-threatening illness: a discrete choice experiment

PURPOSE

To explore in a sample of adult cancer patients: (1) the relative influence of initiation source, information format and consultation format on preferred approach to life expectancy disclosure using a discrete choice experiment (DCE); and (2) whether patient age, cancer type and perceived prognosis were associated with preferences within the three attributes.

METHODS

A DCE survey of adult solid tumour and haematological cancer patients. Participants chose between three hypothetical scenarios about life expectancy disclosure consisting of three attributes: initiation source (i.e. doctor versus patient-initiated discussion), information content (i.e. estimate presented as best-worst-typical length of life case scenario versus median survival time) and consultation format (i.e. two 20-min versus one 40-min consultation). Respondents selected their most preferred scenario within each question.

RESULTS

Three hundred and two patients completed the DCE (78% consent rate). Initiation source was the most influential predictor of patient choice. More preferred a doctor deliver life expectancy information as soon as it is available rather than waiting for the patient to ask (59% vs 41% z = - 7.396, p < 0.01). More patients preferred the two 20-min rather than the one 40-min consultation format (55% vs 45%, z = 4.284, p < 0.01). Information content did not influence choice. Age, cancer type, and patient-perceived prognosis were not associated with preferences.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare professionals should assess cancer patients' preferences for engaging in life expectancy discussions as soon as they have this information, and ensure patients have adequate time to consider the information they receive, seek additional information and involve others if they wish.

Development and preliminary results on the feasibility of a renal diet specific question prompt sheet for use in nephrology clinics

Background

Adherence to the diet prescription for chronic kidney disease is suboptimal. Interventions to improve dietary adherence suggest that improving communication between the patient and the health professional is fundamental to improving outcomes. Providing patients with a question prompt sheet prior to the consultation has been demonstrated to be an effective method for improving communication between patient and health professional. In the absence of a renal diet specific version, the aims of this study were to develop and test the feasibility of a renal diet specific question prompt sheet for use in nephrology clinics.

Methods

Phase one utilized social listening methodology, online content analysis and clinic observations to obtain an extensive list of frequently asked questions about the renal diet. Following refinement with health professionals, the draft question prompt sheet was then sent in Phase two to patients one week prior to their scheduled consultation with the renal dietitian. Feedback was obtained from patients, carers and dietitians using semi structured interviews post clinic consultation. Quantitative data was analyzed using counts and proportions, while free text responses were analyzed thematically.

Results

A total of 769 unique renal diet related questions were reduced to an 18-item question prompt sheet. Feedback from thirteen patients (six males), six carers and six dietitians involved in the preliminary feasibility study was overwhelmingly positive. The majority of patients found the question prompt sheet to be easy to understand and agreed it facilitated communication with the dietitian. All participants agreed that they would recommend use of question prompt sheet to other patients. Suggestions for future use included health professional training in use of the sheet, particularly about how to help patients prioritize their most important questions.

Conclusions

The 18-item renal diet question prompt sheet developed in this preliminary study appears to be a feasible tool for use in nephrology consultations especially by dietitians. Further research quantifying the impact on question asking and patient centeredness should be undertaken. In addition, user testing with patients from culturally diverse and low literacy backgrounds would be useful.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12882-019-1231-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Fear and forget: how anxiety impacts information recall in newly diagnosed cancer patients visiting a fast-track clinic

INTRODUCTION

One-day fast track programs for cancer diagnostics and treatment planning are increasingly being implemented in health care. Fast-track programs are highly effective at reducing waiting times, and thus well received by patients and healthcare providers. However, these programs may also burden patients, as patients generally receive a lot of information from multiple healthcare providers within a short time span. This might increase anxiety and negatively impact recall of medical information in newly diagnosed patients. This study examines whether anxiety influences information recall at the moment of diagnosis, and whether this relation differs for younger and older patients.

METHODS

Data were collected from 78 colorectal cancer patients visiting a one-day fast-track multidisciplinary outpatient clinic. All consultations that took place were recorded on a video. Anxiety was measured at baseline (T1) and immediately after consultations (T2) with the STAI-6. Information recall was assessed by telephone within 36-48 hours after patients' visit (T3) using open questions.

RESULTS

After consultations (T2), 32% of patients experienced clinical anxiety levels. Patients recalled ∼60% of medical information (T3). Information recall was negatively impacted by anxiety (β = -.28, p = .011), and negatively related to higher age (β = -.23, p = .031), and lower education level (β = .27, p = .013). Although older patients (M = 53.99) recalled 11% less information than younger patients (M = 64.84), age was not related to anxiety and did not moderate the anxiety-recall relationship.

CONCLUSION

High levels of anxiety after receiving a cancer diagnosis negatively influence how much information patients remember after visiting a one-day fast-track clinic. This calls for interventions that may reduce patients' anxiety as much as reasonably possible and support patients' information recall. Researchers, practitioners, and hospitals are encouraged to continue exploring ways to optimize information provision to cancer patients in current modern healthcare.

The Effectiveness of a Computer-Tailored E-Learning Program for Practice Nurses to Improve Their Adherence to Smoking Cessation Counseling Guidelines: Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Improving practice nurses’ (PN) adherence to smoking cessation counseling guidelines will benefit the quality of smoking cessation care and will potentially lead to higher smoking abstinence rates. However, support programs to aid PNs in improving their guideline uptake and adherence do not exist yet.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the effects of a novel computer-tailored electronic learning (e-learning) program on PNs’ smoking cessation guideline adherence.

Methods

A Web-based randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted in which an intervention group (N=147) with full access to the e-learning program for 6 months was compared with a control group (N=122) without access. Data collection was fully automated at baseline and 6-month follow-up via online questionnaires, assessing PNs’ demographics, work-related factors, potential behavioral predictors based on the I-Change model, and guideline adherence. PNs also completed counseling checklists to retrieve self-reported counseling activities for each consultation with a smoker (N=1175). To assess the program’s effectiveness in improving PNs’ guideline adherence (ie, overall adherence and adherence to individual counseling guideline steps), mixed linear and logistic regression analyses were conducted, thus accommodating for the smokers being nested within PNs. Potential effect moderation by work-related factors and behavioral predictors was also examined.

Results

After 6 months, 121 PNs in the intervention group (82.3%, 121/147) and 103 in the control group (84.4%, 103/122) completed the follow-up questionnaire. Mixed linear regression analysis revealed that counseling experience moderated the program’s effect on PNs’ overall guideline adherence (beta=.589; 95% CI 0.111-1.068; P_{Holm-Bonferroni} =.048), indicating a positive program effect on adherence for PNs with a more than average level of counseling experience. Mixed logistic regression analyses regarding adherence to individual guideline steps revealed a trend toward moderating effects of baseline levels of behavioral predictors and counseling experience. More specifically, for PNs with less favorable scores on behavioral predictors (eg, low baseline self-efficacy) and high levels of counseling experience, the program significantly increased adherence.

Conclusions

Results from our RCT showed that among PNs with more than average counseling experience, the e-learning program resulted in significantly better smoking cessation guideline adherence. Experienced PNs might have been better able to translate the content of our e-learning program into practically applicable counseling strategies compared with less experienced colleagues. Less favorable baseline levels of behavioral predictors among PNs possibly contributed to this effect, as there was more room for improvement by consulting the tailored content of the e-learning program. To further substantiate the effectiveness of e-learning programs on guideline adherence by health care professionals (HCPs), it is important to assess how to support a wider range of HCPs.

Trial Registration

Netherlands Trial Register NTR4436; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=4436 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6zJQuSRq0)