Physicians' responses to advanced cancer patients' existential concerns: A video-based analysis

Communicative Practices Clinicians Use to Correct Patient Misconceptions in Primary Care Visits

To investigate how clinicians correct patient misconceptions, we analyzed 23 video recordings of primary care visits. Analysis focused on operationalizing, identifying, and characterizing clinician corrections, integrating two inductive approaches: microanalysis of clinical interaction and conversation analysis. According to our definition, patient misconception-clinician correction episodes met three essential criteria: (1) the clinician refuted something the patient had said, (2) which the patient had presented without uncertainty, and (3) which contained a proposition that was factually incorrect. We identified 59 such episodes; the patient misconceptions most commonly related to medication issues; fewer than half had foreseeable implications for patients' future actions. We identified seven clinician correction practices: Three direct practices (displaying surprise, marking disagreement, contradicting the patient) and four indirect practices (presenting the correct proposition, providing explanations, invoking an outside authority, demonstrating with evidence). We found an almost equal distribution of these direct and indirect practices.

Existential Care in Daily Nursing Practice

ABSTRACT

Relationship-centered palliative nursing during serious illness requires existential care. Yet, multilevel systemic barriers hinder nurses' ability to provide this care. The authors suggest ways to navigate these barriers, highlighting existential care priorities that nurses can attend to in their daily practice. These include 1) maintaining a strengths-based orientation, 2) taking a life course perspective, 3) grounding care firmly in relationships, and 4) responding moment to moment. They propose that by emphasizing existential care in palliative nursing, we can create a more compassionate and human-centered health system.

The Effectiveness of Physical Literacy Interventions: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The holistic concept of physical literacy assumes that individuals require adequate cognitive (knowledge and understanding), affective (motivation and confidence), and physical (physical competence) qualities to engage in lifelong physical activity behavior. In recent years, the research field has undergone rapid development and has also yielded an increasing number of interventions that aim to translate the theoretical-philosophical ideas into practical endeavors.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of the present pre-registered systematic review was to (a) provide a general overview of evaluation studies on physical literacy interventions and (b) to quantitatively examine the effectiveness of physical literacy interventions.

METHODS

Drawing on the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched a total of 18 databases for physical literacy interventions. Inclusion criteria were English language, publication by November 2021, and interventions using physical literacy as a theoretical underpinning or evaluation outcome. Articles that met these criteria were analyzed with respect to their basic delivery characteristics, study quality, evaluation approach, and main findings. We additionally ran meta-analyses with all non-randomized and randomized controlled trials to examine and compare the effect of these interventions on five outcome categories: (i) physical competence, (ii) motivation and confidence, (iii) knowledge and understanding, (iv) physical activity behavior, and (v) total physical literacy. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the effects on the different categories.

RESULTS

The screening process with two independent raters yielded 48 eligible interventions reported in 51 eligible articles. Quantitative evaluations most frequently addressed physical competence (72.2%), followed by motivation and confidence (47.2%), physical activity behavior (41.7%), and knowledge and understanding (33.3%). The controlled intervention studies (n = 24) exerted significant effects on all five physical literacy categories. Despite meaningful heterogeneity across the subgroups, the strongest effects were found for physical competence (SMD 0.90; 95% CI 0.55-1.25), followed by physical literacy aggregate scores (SMD 0.61; 95% CI 0.20-1.01), knowledge and understanding (SMD 0.54; 95% CI 0.30-0.79), physical activity behavior (SMD 0.39; 95% CI 0.23-0.55), and motivation and confidence (SMD 0.30; 95% CI 0.17-0.44).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study empirically demonstrated the effectiveness of physical literacy interventions on several outcomes relevant for promoting physical activity and health. To better inform current practices, future studies are advised to identify those program characteristics that significantly influence the effectiveness of physical literacy interventions.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020188926.