Barriers Against Psychosocial Communication: Oncologists' Perceptions

Purpose

To explore oncologists' psychosocial attitudes and beliefs and their perceptions regarding barriers against psychosocial communication.

Methods

A questionnaire was distributed to oncologists in Sweden (n = 537). Questions covered demography, the Physician Psychosocial Beliefs Scale (PPBS), and barriers against psychosocial communication. Stepwise multiple regression was used to determine what factors contribute the most to the PPBS score and the total number of barriers and barriers affecting clinical practice, respectively. Spearman rank-order correlation was used to determine correlation between PPBS score and number of barriers.

Results

Questionnaire response rate was 64%. Mean PPBS value was 85.5 (range, 49 to 123; SD, 13.0). Most oncologists (93%) perceived one or more barriers in communicating psychosocial aspects with patients. On average, five different communication barriers were perceived, of which most were perceived to affect clinical practice. These barriers included insufficient consultation time, lack of resources for taking care of problems discovered, and lack of methods to evaluate patients' psychosocial health in clinical practice. There was a positive correlation (rs = 0.490; P < .001) between the PPBS score and the number of perceived barriers (ie, less psychosocially oriented oncologists perceived more barriers). Oncologists with supplementary education with a psychosocial focus perceived fewer barriers/barriers affecting clinical practice (P < .001 and P = .001, respectively) and were more psychosocially oriented (P = .001).

Conclusion

Oncologists perceive many different barriers affecting psychosocial communication in clinical practice. Interventions aiming to improve psychosocial communication must therefore be multifaceted and individualized to clinics and individual oncologists. It is important to minimize barriers to facilitate optimal care and treatment of patients with cancer.

Comparison of two instruments for measurement of quality of life in clinical practice--a qualitative study

Background

The study aimed to investigate the meaning patients assign to two measures of quality of life: the Schedule for Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW) and the SEIQoL-DW Disease Related (DR) version, in a clinical oncology setting. Even though the use of quality of life assessments has increased during the past decades, uncertainty regarding how to choose the most suitable measure remains. SEIQoL-DW versions assesses the individual’s perception of his or her present quality of life by allowing the individual to nominate the domains to be evaluated followed by a weighting procedure resulting in qualitative (domains) as well as quantitative outcomes (index score).

Methods

The study applied a cross-sectional design with a qualitative approach and collected data from a purposeful sample of 40 patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Patients were asked to complete two measures, SEIQoL-DW and the SEIQoL-DR, to assess quality of life. This included nomination of the areas in life considered most important and rating of these areas; after completion patients participated in cognitive interviews around their selections of areas. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim which was followed by analysis using a phenomenographic approach.

Results

The analyses of nominated areas of the two measures resulted in 11 domains reflecting what patients perceived had greatest impact on their quality of life. Analysis of the cognitive interviews resulted in 16 thematic categories explaining the nominated domains. How patients reflected around their quality of life appeared to differ by version (DW vs. DR). The DW version more often related to positive aspects in life while the DR version more often related to negative changes in life due to having cancer.

Conclusions

The two SEIQoL versions tap into different concepts; health-related quality of life, addressing losses and problems related to having cancer and, quality of life, more associated with aspects perceived as positive in life. The SEIQoL-DR and the SEIQoL-DW are recommended in clinical practice to take both negative and positive aspects into account and acting on the problems of greatest importance to the patient.

Quality of life assessments in clinical practice using either the EORTC-QLQ-C30 or the SEIOQL-DW: a randomized study

BACKGROUND

Effective patient-physician communication can improve patient understanding, agreement on treatment and adherence. This may, in turn, impact on clinical outcomes and patient quality of life (QoL). One way to improve communication is by using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Heretofore, studies of the impact of using PROMs in clinical practice have mostly evaluated the use of standardized PROMs. However, there is reason to believe that individualized instruments may be more appropriate for this purpose. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of the standardized QoL-instrument, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life C-30 (EORTC-QOL-C30) and the individualized QoL instrument, the Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW), in clinical practice.

METHODS

In a prospective, open-label, controlled intervention study at two hospital out-patient clinics, 390 patients with gastrointestinal cancer were randomly assigned either to complete the EORTC-QOL-C30 or the SEIQoL-DW immediately before the consultation, with their responses being shared with their physician. This was repeated in 3-5 consultations over a period of 4-6 months. The primary outcome measure was patients' health-related QoL, as measured by FACIT-G. Patients' satisfaction with the consultation and survival were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to study outcomes. Neither intervention instrument resulted in any significant changes in health-related QoL, or in any of the secondary outcomes, over time. This may reflect either a genuine lack of effect or sub-optimization of the intervention. Since there was no comparison to standard care an effect in terms of lack of deterioration over time cannot be excluded.

CONCLUSIONS

Future studies should focus on the implementation process, including the training of physicians to use the instruments and their motivation for doing so. The effects of situational use of standardized or individualized instruments should also be explored. The effectiveness of the different approaches may depend on contextual factors including physician and patient preferences.