Patient communication pattern scale: psychometric characteristics

Patient Participation and the Environment: A Scoping Review of Instruments

Patient participation and the environment are critical factors in achieving qualitative healthcare. We conducted a systematic scoping review using Arksey and O'Malley's framework to identify instruments intended to measure patient participation. We assessed those instruments' characteristics, which areas of the healthcare continuum they target, and whether environmental factors are considered. Instruments were considered eligible if they represented the patient perspective and measured patient participation in healthcare. The search was limited to articles written in English and published in the last 10 years. We extracted concepts (i.e., patient empowerment, patient participation, and patient-centeredness) based on the framework developed by Castro et al. and outcomes of significance regarding the review questions and specific objectives. The search was conducted in PsycINFO, CINHAL/EBSCO, and PubMed in September 2019 and July 2020. Of 4802 potential titles, 67 studies reported on a total of 45 instruments that met the inclusion criteria for this review. The concept of patient participation was represented most often in these studies. Although some considered the social environment, no instrument was found to incorporate and address the physical environment. Thirteen instruments were generic and the remaining instruments were intended for specific diagnoses or healthcare contexts. Our work is the first to study instruments from this perspective, and we conclude that there is a lack of instruments that measure aspects of the social and physical environment coherently as part of patient participation.

Prognostic disclosure in cancer care: a systematic literature review

Background:

Collusion in cancer care is the diplomatic concealment of information between a triad of the health care professional (HCP), patient, and caregiver. Free and expressive communication is determined by multiple factors, which establishes a healthy balance between ‘patient-centric’ and ‘family-centric’ decision making. The lack of a universal approach to prognostic disclosure techniques emphasizes the need for a systematic review of contemporary practice.

Methods:

A systematic review of the literature was conducted till June 2020 using themes based on cancer, communication, prognostic disclosure, and collusion by using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Results:

Fifty-three studies involving 10,569 subjects were studied for their utility on prognostic disclosure using different communication methods and interfaces. Twenty-three studies used a face-to-face interview with subjects while in-person telephonic interviews were conducted in two studies, 16 studies implicated semi-structured questionnaires, and 6 studies mentioned the development of a new technique/tool for disclosure. The duration of a session for prognosis-disclosure ranged from 22 min to 1 h. The involvement of palliative care specialists and mental health professionals was limited during the disclosure of the prognosis.

Conclusion:

The findings of the review indicate that patients in cancer care are aware of their diagnosis and to a certain extent of prognosis despite nondisclosure by their family members and treating teams. This review emphasizes the assessment of ‘disclosure wishes’ among patients and caregivers in separate interviews rather than simply relying on one specific method of interviewing. The nonconfrontational approach and training among HCPs are of utmost importance to build therapeutic resilience among the treating team involved in cancer care. Since many factors such as family wishes, cultural dissonance, medical model, and patient perception could become barriers to prognostic disclosure, there is a need to develop a universal approach to prognostic disclosure and handling associated collusion.

Determinants of satisfactory patient communication and shared decision making in patients with multiple myeloma

OBJECTIVE

To identify determinants of shared decision making in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) to facilitate the design of a program to maximize the effects of shared decision making.

METHODS

This prospective longitudinal study recruited 276 adult patients (52% male, mean age 62.86 y, SD 15.45). Each patient completed the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS), Multidimensional Trust in Health Care Systems Scale (MTHCSS), Patient Communication Pattern Scale (PCPS), and 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) at baseline and the SDM-Q-9 again 6 months later. One family member of the patient completed the Family Decision-Making Self-Efficacy (FDMSE) at baseline. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to investigate the associations between eHealth literacy (eHEALS), trust in the health care system (MTHCSS), self-efficacy in family decision making (FDMSE), patient communication pattern (PCPS), and shared decision making (SDM-Q-9).

RESULTS

SEM showed satisfactory fit (comparative fit index = 0.988) and significant correlations between the following: eHealth literacy and trust in the health care system (β = 0.723, P < 0.001); eHealth literacy and patient communication pattern (β = 0.242, P < 0.001); trust in the health care system and patient communication pattern (β = 0.397, P < 0.001); self-efficacy in family decision making and patient communication pattern (β = 0.264, P < 0.001); eHealth literacy and shared decision making (β = 0.267, P < 0.001); and patient communication pattern and shared decision making (β = 0.349, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient communication and eHealth literacy were found to be important determinants of shared decision making. These factors should be taken into consideration when developing strategies to enhance the level of shared decision making.