Quantifying implicit uncertainty in primary care consultations: A systematic comparison of communication about medically explained versus unexplained symptoms

How should uncertainty about upcoming painful procedures be communicated? An experimental study into highly uncertain pain predictions

OBJECTIVE

Uncertainty is unavoidable in the context of painful medical procedures. It is important to investigate the impact of different ways of communicating uncertainty on upcoming pain.

METHODS

In our exploratory study, healthy participants (n = 30) were repeatedly presented with three highly uncertain pain predictions communicated by a hypothetical doctor. A direct statement of high uncertainty ("I don't know") was compared to more indirect predictions (social prediction: "It varies widely among people"; range prediction: "… not painful at all to very highly painful"), followed by individually calibrated electrical stimuli of non-, moderately, or very highly painful intensity.

RESULTS

The direct expression of uncertainty led to the most intense pain sensation (for moderately painful stimuli only), lowest and most certain pain expectations, lowest trust in the hypothetical doctor, and lowest feeling of being well-informed, especially as compared to the social prediction. No differential effects on anxiety were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Expressing high uncertainty indirectly, with reference to the common experiences of others, may be beneficial for optimizing pain experiences and enhancing patients' trust in a medical professional.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Our findings inform on how high uncertainty about upcoming pain may impact patient and health outcomes, pointing to some advantages of indirect communication.

Persistent somatic symptom related stigmatisation by healthcare professionals: A systematic review of questionnaire measurement instruments

OBJECTIVE

Patients with persistent somatic symptoms (PSS) experience stigmatising attitudes and behaviours by healthcare professionals. While previous research has focussed on individual manifestations of PSS related stigma, less is known about sound ways to measure stigmatisation by healthcare professionals towards patients with PSS. This review aims to assess the quality of questionnaire measurement instruments and make recommendations about their use.

METHODS

A systematic review using six databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Open Grey and EThOS). The search strategy combined three search strings related to healthcare professionals, PSS and stigma. Additional publications were identified by searching bibliographies. Three authors independently extracted the data. Data analysis and synthesis followed COSMIN methodology for reviews of outcome measurement instruments.

RESULTS

We identified 90 publications that met the inclusion criteria using 62 questionnaire measurement instruments. Stereotypes were explored in 92% of instruments, prejudices in 52% of instruments, and discrimination in 19% of instruments. The development process of the instruments was not rated higher than doubtful. Construct validity, structural validity, internal consistency and reliability were the most commonly investigated measurement properties. Evidence around content validity was inconsistent or indeterminate.

CONCLUSION

No instrument provided acceptable evidence on all measurement properties. Many instruments were developed for use within a single publication, with little evidence of their development or establishment of content validity. This is problematic because stigma instruments should reflect the challenges that healthcare professionals face when working with patients with PSS. They should also reflect the experiences that patients with PSS have widely reported during clinical encounters.

Communication of Diagnostic Uncertainty in Primary Care and Its Impact on Patient Experience: an Integrative Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic uncertainty is a pervasive issue in primary care where patients often present with non-specific symptoms early in the disease process. Knowledge about how clinicians communicate diagnostic uncertainty to patients is crucial to prevent associated diagnostic errors. Yet, in-depth research on the interpersonal communication of diagnostic uncertainty has been limited. We conducted an integrative systematic literature review (PROSPERO CRD42020197624, unfunded) to investigate how primary care doctors communicate diagnostic uncertainty in interactions with patients and how patients experience their care in the face of uncertainty.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Linguistics and Language Behaviour Abstracts (LLBA) from inception to December 2021 for MeSH and keywords related to 'communication', 'diagnosis', 'uncertainty' and 'primary care' environments and stakeholders (patients and doctors), and conducted additional handsearching. We included empirical primary care studies published in English on spoken communication of diagnostic uncertainty by doctors to patients. We assessed risk of bias with the QATSDD quality assessment tool and conducted thematic and content analysis to synthesise the results.

RESULTS

Inclusion criteria were met for 19 out of 1281 studies. Doctors used two main communication strategies to manage diagnostic uncertainty: (1) patient-centred communication strategies (e.g. use of empathy), and (2) diagnostic reasoning strategies (e.g. excluding serious diagnoses). Linguistically, diagnostic uncertainty was either disclosed explicitly or implicitly through diverse lexical and syntactical constructions, or not communicated (omission). Patients' experiences of care in response to the diverse communicative and linguistic strategies were mixed. Patient-centred approaches were generally regarded positively by patients.

DISCUSSION

Despite a small number of included studies, this is the first review to systematically catalogue the diverse communication and linguistic strategies to express diagnostic uncertainty in primary care. Health professionals should be aware of the diverse strategies used to express diagnostic uncertainty in practice and the value of combining patient-centred approaches with diagnostic reasoning strategies.

Coding linguistic elements in clinical interactions: a step-by-step guide for analyzing communication form

Background

The quality of communication between healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients affects health outcomes. Different coding systems have been developed to unravel the interaction. Most schemes consist of predefined categories that quantify the content of communication (the what). Though the form (the how) of the interaction is equally important, protocols that systematically code variations in form are lacking. Patterns of form and how they may differ between groups therefore remain unnoticed. To fill this gap, we present CLECI, Coding Linguistic Elements in Clinical Interactions, a protocol for the development of a quantitative codebook analyzing communication form in medical interactions.

Methods

Analyzing with a CLECI codebook is a four-step process, i.e. preparation, codebook development, (double-)coding, and analysis and report. Core activities within these phases are research question formulation, data collection, selection of utterances, iterative deductive and inductive category refinement, reliability testing, coding, analysis, and reporting.

Results and conclusion

We present step-by-step instructions for a CLECI analysis and illustrate this process in a case study. We highlight theoretical and practical issues as well as the iterative codebook development which combines theory-based and data-driven coding. Theory-based codes assess how relevant linguistic elements occur in natural interactions, whereas codes derived from the data accommodate linguistic elements to real-life interactions and contribute to theory-building. This combined approach increases research validity, enhances theory, and adjusts to fit naturally occurring data. CLECI will facilitate the study of communication form in clinical interactions and other institutional settings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01647-0.

Frequency of medical students' language expressing implicit uncertainty in simulated handovers

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the number and type of implicit expressions of uncertainty by medical students during simulated patient handovers.

METHODS

Eighty-seven volunteer medical students, a convenience sample collected on a first-come, first-served basis, participated in simulated handovers. They each worked with three simulated patients who presented with different chief complaints and personal conditions. The handovers were video recorded and transcribed. A framework of implicit expressions of uncertainty was used to identify and count modifiers that attenuate or strengthen medical information using MAXQDA lexical search. We analysed the findings with respect to the patients' contexts.

RESULTS

Implicit uncertainty expressions which attenuate or strengthen information occurred in almost equal frequency, 1879 (55%) versus 1505 (45%). Attenuators were found most frequently in the category 'Questionable', 1041 (55.4%), strengtheners in the category 'Focused', 1031 (68.5%). Most attenuators and strengtheners were found in the handover of two patients with challenging personal conditions ('angry man', 434 (23.1%) versus 323 (21.5%); 'unfocused woman', 354 (19.4%) versus 322 (21.4%)) and one patient with abnormal laboratory findings ('elevated creatinine', 379 (20.2%) versus 285 (18.9%)).

CONCLUSIONS

Medical students use a variety of implicit expressions of uncertainty in simulated handovers. These findings provide an opportunity for medical educators to design communication courses that raise students' awareness for content-dependent implicit expressions of uncertainty and provide strategies to communicate uncertainty explicitly.

Unexplained versus explained symptoms: The difference is not in patients' language use. A quantitative analysis of linguistic markers

OBJECTIVE

Patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) are believed to have a deviant way of talking about complaints. This study systematically compared linguistic markers in symptom presentations of patients with MUS and medically explained symptoms (MES).

METHODS

This content analysis (cross-sectional study) conceptualized relevant linguistic markers based on previous research about MUS communication. Linguistic markers included negations ("not"), intensifiers ("very"), diminishers ("a little"), first or third person subject ("I" vs. "my body"), subjectivity markers ("I think") and abstraction ("I'm gasping for breath" vs. "I'm short of breath"). We also coded valence, reference to physical or mental states, and consultation phase. We compared 41 MUS and 41 MES transcribed video-recorded general practice consultations. Data were analyzed with binary random intercepts models.

RESULTS

We selected and coded 2752 relevant utterances. Patients with MUS used less diminishers compared to patients with MES, but this main effect disappeared when consultation phase was included as predictor. For all other linguistic variables, the analyses did not reveal any variation in language use based on whether patients had MUS or MES. Importantly, utterances' valence and reference to physical or mental state did predict the use of linguistic markers.

CONCLUSION

We observed no systematic variations in linguistic markers for patients who suffered from MUS compared to MES. Patients varied their language use based on utterances' valence and reference to physical or mental states. Current ideas about deviant patient communication may be based on stigmatized perceptions of how patients with MUS communicate, rather than actual differences in their talk.

A scoping review of practice recommendations for clinicians' communication of uncertainty

BACKGROUND

Health-care providers increasingly have to discuss uncertainty with patients. Awareness of uncertainty can affect patients variably, depending on how it is communicated. To date, no overview existed for health-care professionals on how to discuss uncertainty.

OBJECTIVE

To generate an overview of available recommendations on how to communicate uncertainty with patients during clinical encounters.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A scoping review was conducted. Four databases were searched following the PRISMA-ScR statement. Independent screening by two researchers was performed of titles and abstracts, and subsequently full texts.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Any (non-)empirical papers were included describing recommendations for any health-care provider on how to orally communicate uncertainty to patients.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data on provided recommendations and their characteristics (eg, target group and strength of evidence base) were extracted. Recommendations were narratively synthesized into a comprehensible overview for clinical practice.

RESULTS

Forty-seven publications were included. Recommendations were based on empirical findings in 23 publications. After narrative synthesis, 13 recommendations emerged pertaining to three overarching goals: (a) preparing for the discussion of uncertainty, (b) informing patients about uncertainty and (c) helping patients deal with uncertainty.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

A variety of recommendations on how to orally communicate uncertainty are available, but most lack an evidence base. More substantial research is needed to assess the effects of the suggested communicative approaches. Until then, health-care providers may use our overview of communication strategies as a toolbox to optimize communication about uncertainty with patients.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Results were presented to stakeholders (physicians) to check and improve their practical applicability.

Oncologists' Communication About Uncertain Information in Second Opinion Consultations: A Focused Qualitative Analysis

Introduction: Uncertainty is omnipresent in cancer care, including the ambiguity of diagnostic tests, efficacy and side effects of treatments, and/or patients' long-term prognosis. During second opinion consultations, uncertainty may be particularly tangible: doubts and uncertainty may drive patients to seek more information and request a second opinion, whereas the second opinion in turn may also affect patients' level of uncertainty. Providers are tasked to clearly discuss all of these uncertainties with patients who may feel overwhelmed by it. The aim of this study was to explore how oncologists communicate about uncertainty during second opinion consultations in medical oncology. Methods: We performed a secondary qualitative analysis of audio-recorded consultations collected in a prospective study among cancer patients (N = 69) who sought a second opinion in medical oncology. We purposively selected 12 audio-recorded second opinion consultations. Any communication about uncertainty by the oncologist was double coded by two researchers and an inductive analytic approach was chosen to allow for novel insights to arise. Results: Seven approaches in which oncologists conveyed or addressed uncertainty were identified: (1) specifying the degree of uncertainty, (2) explaining reasons of uncertainty, (3) providing personalized estimates of uncertainty to patients, (4) downplaying or magnifying uncertainty, (5) reducing or counterbalancing uncertainty, and (6) providing support to facilitate patients in coping with uncertainty. Moreover, oncologists varied in their (7) choice of words/language to convey uncertainty (i.e., "I" vs. "we"; level of explicitness). Discussion: This study identified various approaches of how oncologists communicated uncertain issues during second opinion consultations. These different approaches could affect patients' perception of uncertainty, emotions provoked by it, and possibly even patients' behavior. For example, by minimizing uncertainty, oncologists may (un)consciously steer patients toward specific medical decisions). Future research is needed to examine how these different ways of communicating about uncertainty affect patients. This could also facilitate a discussion about the desirability of certain communication strategies. Eventually, practical and evidence-based guidance needs to be developed for clinicians to optimally inform patients about uncertain issues and support patients in dealing with these.