Tele-Oncology Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Patient Experiences and Communication Behaviors with Clinicians

Background: Tele-oncology became a widely used tool during the COVID-19 pandemic, but there was limited understanding of how patient-clinician communication occurred using the technology. Our goal was to identify how communication transpired during tele-oncology consultations compared with in-person appointments. Methods: A convergent parallel mixed-method design was utilized for the web-based survey, and follow-up interviews were conducted with cancer patients from March to December 2020. Participants were recruited from the University of Florida Health Cancer Center and two national cancer organizations. During the survey, participants rated their clinician's patient-centered communication behaviors. Open-ended survey responses and interview data were combined and analyzed thematically using the constant comparative method. Results: A total of 158 participants completed the survey, and 33 completed an interview. Ages ranged from 19 to 88 years (mean = 64.2; standard deviation = 13.0); 53.2% identified as female and 44.9% as male. The majority of respondents (76%) considered communication in tele-oncology equal to in-person visits. Preferences for tele-oncology included the ability to get information from the clinician, with 13.5% rating tele-oncology as better than in-person appointments. Tele-oncology was considered worse than in-person appointments for eye contact (n = 21, 12.4%) and virtual waiting room times (n = 50, 29.4%). The following qualitative themes corresponded with several quantitative variables: (1) commensurate to in-person appointments, (2) uncertainty with the digital platform, (3) lack of a personal connection, and (4) enhanced patient experience. Conclusion: Patient-centered communication behaviors were mostly viewed as equally prevalent during tele-oncology and in-person appointments. Addressing the challenges of tele-oncology is necessary to improve the patient experience.

Patient-Centered Discussions About Disease Progression, Symptom, and Treatment Burden in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Could Facilitate the Integration of End-of-Life Discussions in the Disease Trajectory: Patient, Clinician, and Literature Perspectives: A Multimethod Approach

Background: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) seldom discuss preferences for future care/treatments with clinicians. The lack of discussions prevents the delivery of care grounded on patient preferences. Instead, treatments become increasingly burdensome as disease progresses and patients approach the end of life. Objective: Identify current and best practice in initiating and conducting conversations about future and palliative care, by integrating data from multiple sources. Design: Multiphasic study where the findings of a systematic literature review and qualitative interviews were combined and synthesized using a triangulation protocol. Setting/Participants: Thirty-three patients with COPD and 14 clinicians from multiple backgrounds were recruited in the United Kingdom. Results: Clinicians' and patients' poor understanding about palliative care and COPD, difficulties in timing and initiating discussions, and service rationing were the main factors for late discussions. Divergent perspectives between patients and clinicians about palliative care discussions often prevented their start. Instead, early and gradual patient-centered discussions on treatment choices, symptom, and treatment burden were recommended by patients, clinicians, and the literature. Earlier patient-centered discussions may reduce their emotional impact and enable patients to participate fully, while enabling clinicians to provide timely and accurate information on illness progression and appropriate self-management techniques. Conclusion: Current approaches toward palliative care discussions in COPD do not guarantee that patients' preferences are met. Early and gradual patient-centered discussions may enable patients to fully express their care preferences as they evolve over time, while minimizing the impact of symptom and treatment burden.

"Are You Safe at Home?": Clinician's Assessments for Intimate Partner Violence at the Initial Obstetric Visit

Few studies have empirically examined patient-clinician conversations to assess how intimate partner violence (IPV) screening is performed. Our study sought to examine audio-recorded first obstetric encounters' IPV screening conversations to describe and categorize communication approaches and explore associations with patient disclosure. We analyzed 247 patient encounters with 47 providers. IPV screening occurred in 95% of visits: 57% used direct questions, 25% used indirect questions, 17% repeated IPV screening later in the visit, 11% framed questions with a reason for asking, and 10% described IPV types. Patients disclosed IPV in 71 (28.7%) visits. There were no associations between disclosure and any categories of IPV screening.

Secure Messaging and COVID-19: A Content Analysis of Patient-Clinician Communication During the Pandemic

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) immediately impacted patient-clinician communication, particularly in the oncology setting. Relatedly, secure messaging (SM) usage greatly increased, yet it is unknown what was discussed and whether the technology was utilized to disseminate information. Aims: This study aimed at identifying the most frequently discussed topics using SM as well as at understanding how the communication process transpired during the early stages of the pandemic. Materials and Methods: A mixed-methods design was utilized, consisting of a content analysis of more than 4,200 secure messages, aggregated into 1,454 patient-clinician discussions. Data were collected from February 2020 to May 2020. Discussions were from various oncology departments and included physicians, physician assistants, and nurses. Based on the identified categories, a thematic analysis was conducted to understand the nuances occurring within discussions. Results: Out of the 1,454 discussions, 26% (n = 373) related to COVID-19. Of the COVID-19 discussion, the most frequently coded category was "changes, adjustments, and re-arranging care" (65%, n = 241), followed by "risk for COVID-19" (24%, n = 90), "precautions inside the hospital" (18%, n = 66), and "precautions outside the hospital" (14%, n = 52). Natural language processing techniques were used to confirm the validity of the results. Thematic analysis revealed that patients were proactive in rescheduling appointments, expressed anxiety about being immunocompromised, and clinicians were uncertain about providing recommendations related to COVID-19. Conclusions: The COVID-19 outbreak revealed the need for responsive and effective public health communication. The SM can disseminate information from trusted sources, clinicians, but can be better utilized to deliver tailored information for specific patient populations.

Patient Perceived Involvement in Their Treatment is Influenced by Factors Other Than Independently Rated Clinician Communication Effectiveness

We analyzed (1) the correspondence of patient and clinician perceived patient involvement in decision making and ratings made by independent observer's independent ratings, as well as (2), factors associated with patient-perceived involvement, among patients seeking hand specialty care. During 63 visits, the patient, their hand specialist, and 2 independent observers each rated patient involvement in decision making using the 9-item shared decision-making questionnaire for patients and clinicians, and the 5-item observing patient involvement scale (OPTION-5). We also measured health literacy (Newest Vital Sign), patient and visit characteristics (gender, age, race, years of education, occupation, marital status, and family present). There was no correlation (ρ = 0.17; P = .17) between patient (median 42, IQR 36-44.5) and clinician (38, IQR 35-43) ratings of patient involvement in decision making. Independently rated patient involvement correlated moderately with a specialist (ρ = 0.35, P <.01), but not patient (ρ = 0.22, P = .08) ratings. The finding that patient perception of their involvement in decision making has little or no relationship to independently rated clinician communication effectiveness and effort, suggests that other aspects of the encounter-such as empathy and trust-may merit investigation as mediators of the patient agency.

Transforming Health Experience and Action through Shifting the Narrative on Obesity in Primary Care Encounters

We sought to understand the impact of primary care conversations about obesity on people's everyday life health experience and practices. Using a dialogic narrative perspective, we examined key moments in three very different clinical encounters, the patients' journals, and follow-up interviews over several weeks. We trace how people living with obesity negotiate narrative alternatives that are offered during clinical dialogue to transform their own narrative and experience of obesity and self. Findings provide pragmatic insights into how providers can play a significant role in shifting narratives about obesity and self and how such co-constructed narratives translate into change and tangible health outcomes in people's lives.

The Clinical Implications of Nocebo Effects for Biosimilar Therapy

Nocebo effects encompass negative responses to inert interventions in the research setting and negative outcomes with active treatments in the clinical research or practice settings, including new or worsening symptoms and adverse events, stemming from patients' negative expectations and not the pharmacologic action of the treatment itself. Numerous personality, psychosocial, neurobiological, and contextual/environmental factors contribute to the development of nocebo effects, which can impair quality of life and reduce adherence to treatment. Biologics are effective agents widely used in autoimmune disease, but their high cost may limit access for patients. Biosimilar products have gained regulatory approval based on quality, safety, and efficacy comparable to that of originator biologics in rigorous study programs. In this review, we identified gaps in patients' and healthcare professionals' awareness, understanding, and perceptions of biosimilars that may result in negative expectations and nocebo effects, and may diminish their acceptance and clinical benefits. We also examined features of nocebo effects with biosimilar treatment that inform research and clinical practices. Namely, when biosimilars are introduced to patients as possible treatment options, we recommend adoption of nocebo-reducing strategies to avoid negative expectations, including delivery of balanced information on risk-benefit profiles, framing information to focus on positive attributes, and promoting shared decision-making processes along with patient empowerment. Healthcare professionals confident in their knowledge of biosimilars and aware of bias-inducing factors may help reduce the risk of nocebo effects and improve patients' adherence in proposing biosimilars as treatment for autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease.

"I'm Just Forgetting and I Don't Know Why": Exploring How People Living With HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorder View, Manage, and Obtain Support for Their Cognitive Difficulties

HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder (HAND) is common, but the lived experience of HAND is not well-understood. In this descriptive qualitative study, we explored how adults with HAND view, manage, and obtain support for cognitive difficulties. We interviewed 25 participants (20% female; median age = 51 years) who were diagnosed with HAND using neuropsychological assessment and a clinical interview. Semistructured interviews, co-developed with community members living with HIV, focused on how cognitive difficulties manifested and progressed, impacted well-being, and were discussed with others. We analyzed interview transcripts using a team-based, thematic approach. Participants described concentration, memory, and multitasking difficulties that fluctuated over time, as well as potential risk factors, management strategies, and psychosocial consequences. They reported they seldom discussed cognitive impairment with health care professionals, and that receiving a HAND diagnosis was validating, informative, yet somewhat disconcerting. Conversations between health care professionals and people living with HIV about HAND may provide opportunities for education, assessment, and support.

Self-tracking for Mental Wellness: Understanding Expert Perspectives and Student Experiences

Previous research suggests an important role for self-tracking in promoting mental wellness. Recent studies with college student populations have examined the feasibility of collecting everyday mood, activity, and social data. However, these studies do not account for students' experiences and challenges adopting self-tracking technologies to support mental wellness goals. We present two studies conducted to better understand self-tracking for stress management and mental wellness in student populations. First, focus groups and card sorting activities with 14 student health professionals reveal expert perspectives on the usefulness of tracking for three scenarios. Second, an online survey of 297 students examines personal experiences with self-tracking and attitudes toward sharing self-tracked data with others. We draw on findings from these studies to characterize students' motivations, challenges, and preferences in collecting and viewing self-tracked data related to mental wellness, and we compare findings between students with diagnosed mental illnesses and those without. We conclude with a discussion of challenges and opportunities in leveraging self-tracking for mental wellness, highlighting several design considerations.

Patient attitudes towards kidney transplant listing: qualitative findings from the ATTOM study

BACKGROUND

There is variation in time to listing and rates of listing for transplantation between renal units in the UK. While research has mainly focused on healthcare organization, little is known about patient perspectives of entry onto the transplant waiting list. This qualitative study aimed to explore patients' views and experiences of kidney transplant listing.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients aged under 75, who were on dialysis and on the transplant waiting list, not on the waiting list, undergoing assessment for listing or who had received a transplant. Patients were recruited from a purposive sample of nine UK renal units, which included transplanting and non-transplanting units and units with high and low wait-listing patterns. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients (5-7 per renal unit) were interviewed. Patients reported that they had received little information about the listing process. Some patients did not know if they were listed or had found they were not listed when they had thought they were on the list. Others expressed distress when they felt they had been excluded from potential listing based on age and/or comorbidity and felt the process was unfair. Many patients were not aware of pre-emptive transplantation and believed they had to be on dialysis before being able to be listed. There was some indication that pre-emptive transplantation was discussed more often in transplant than non-transplant units. Lastly, some patients were reluctant to consider family members as potential donors as they reported they would feel 'guilty' if the donor suffered subsequent negative effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest a need to review current practice to further understand individual and organizational reasons for the renal unit variation identified in patient understanding of transplant listing. The communication of information warrants attention to ensure patients are fully informed about the listing process and opportunity for pre-emptive transplantation in a way that is meaningful and understandable to them.

Implementing clinical practice guidelines about health promotion and disease prevention through shared decision making

Clinical practice guidelines aim to improve the health of patients by guiding individual care in clinical settings. Many guidelines specifically about health promotion or primary disease prevention are beginning to support informed patient choice, and suggest that clinicians and patients engage in shared discussions to determine how best to tailor guidelines to individuals. However, guidelines generally do not address how to translate evidence from the population to the individual in clinical practice, or how to engage patients in these discussions. In addition, they often fail to reconcile patients' preferences and social norms with best evidence. Shared decision making (SDM) is one solution to bridge guidelines about health promotion and disease prevention with clinical practice. SDM describes a collaborative process between patients and their clinicians to reach agreement about a health decision involving multiple medically appropriate treatment options. This paper discusses: 1) a brief overview of SDM; 2) the potential role of SDM in facilitating the implementation of prevention-focused practice guidelines for both preference-sensitive and effective care decisions; and 3) avenues for future empirical research to test how best to engage individual patients and clinicians in these complex discussions about prevention guidelines. We suggest that SDM can provide a structure for clinicians to discuss clinical practice guidelines with patients in a way that is evidence-based, patient-centered, and incorporates patients' preferences. In addition to providing a model for communicating about uncertainty at the individual level, SDM can provide a platform for engaging patients in a conversation. This process can help manage patients' and clinicians' expectations about health behaviors. SDM can be used even in situations with strong evidence for benefits at the level of the population, by helping patients and clinicians prioritize behaviors during time-pressured medical encounters. Involving patients in discussions could lead to improved health through better adherence to chosen options, reduced practice variation about preference-sensitive options, and improved care more broadly. However, more research is needed to determine the impact of this approach on outcomes such as morbidity and mortality.

Patient-Clinician Communication: The Roadmap for HCI

Effective communication between patients and their clinicians during clinical encounters has a positive impact on health outcomes. Technology has the potential to help transform this synchronous interaction, but researchers are still at early stages of developing interventions to assess and improve patient-clinician communication. In this workshop, we envision opening up a dialogue among researchers and clinicians who wish to discuss directions for future research in this domain. In particular, the workshop will focus on exploring how technologies available today, as well as projected for the future, can support the communication needs of clinicians and patients.

Shared treatment decision making improves adherence and outcomes in poorly controlled asthma

RATIONALE

Poor adherence to asthma controller medications results in poor treatment outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To compare controller medication adherence and clinical outcomes in 612 adults with poorly controlled asthma randomized to one of two different treatment decision-making models or to usual care.

METHODS

In shared decision making (SDM), nonphysician clinicians and patients negotiated a treatment regimen that accommodated patient goals and preferences. In clinician decision making, treatment was prescribed without specifically eliciting patient goals/preferences. The otherwise identical intervention protocols both provided asthma education and involved two in-person and three brief phone encounters.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Refill adherence was measured using continuous medication acquisition (CMA) indices-the total days' supply acquired per year divided by 365 days. Cumulative controller medication dose was measured in beclomethasone canister equivalents. In follow-up Year 1, compared with usual care, SDM resulted in: significantly better controller adherence (CMA, 0.67 vs. 0.46; P < 0.0001) and long-acting beta-agonist adherence (CMA, 0.51 vs. 0.40; P = 0.0225); higher cumulative controller medication dose (canister equivalent, 10.9 vs. 5.2; P < 0.0001); significantly better clinical outcomes (asthma-related quality of life, health care use, rescue medication use, asthma control, and lung function). In Year 2, compared with usual care, SDM resulted in significantly lower rescue medication use, the sole clinical outcome available for that year. Compared with clinician decision making, SDM resulted in: significantly better controller adherence (CMA, 0.67 vs. 0.59; P = 0.03) and long-acting beta-agonist adherence (CMA, 0.51 vs. 0.41; P = 0.0143); higher cumulative controller dose (CMA, 10.9 vs. 9.1; P = 0.005); and quantitatively, but not significantly, better outcomes on all clinical measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Negotiating patients' treatment decisions significantly improves adherence to asthma pharmacotherapy and clinical outcomes. Clinical trials registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00217945 and NCT00149526).

The language divide. The importance of training in the use of interpreters for outpatient practice

PURPOSE

Provision of interpreter services for non-English-speaking patients is a federal requirement. We surveyed clinicians to describe their experience using interpreters.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

In this cross-sectional study we surveyed clinicians in three academic outpatient settings in San Francisco (N = 194) regarding their most recent patient encounter which involved an interpreter. Questions about the visit included type of interpreter, satisfaction with content of clinical encounter, potential problems, and frequency of need. Previous training in interpreter use, languages spoken, and demographics were also asked. Questionnaires were self-administered in approximately 10 minutes.

RESULTS

Of 194 questionnaires mailed, 158 were completed (81% response rate) and 67% were from resident physicians. Most respondents (78%) were very satisfied or satisfied with the medical care they provided, 85% felt satisfied with their ability to diagnose a disease and treat a disease, but only 45% were satisfied with their ability to empower the patient with knowledge about their disease, treatment, or medication. Even though 71% felt they were able to make a personal connection with their patient, only 33% felt they had learned about another culture as a result of the encounter. Clinicians reported difficulties eliciting exact symptoms (70%), explaining treatments (44%), and eliciting treatment preferences (51%). Clinicians perceived that lack of knowledge of a patient's culture hindered their ability to provide quality medical care and only 18% felt they were unable to establish trust or rapport. Previous training in interpreter use was associated with increased use of professional interpreters (odds ratio [OR], 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4 to 7.5) and increased satisfaction with medical care provided (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.1 to 6.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians reported communication difficulties affecting their ability to understand symptoms and treat disease, as well as their ability to empower patients regarding their healthcare. Training in the use of interpreters may improve communication and clinical care, and thus health outcomes.