20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Deciding what information is necessary: do patients with advanced cancer want to know all the details?

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Communicating effectively with patients who have advanced cancer is one of the greatest challenges facing physicians today. Whilst guiding the patient through complex diagnostic and staging techniques, treatment regimens and trials, the physician must translate often imprecise or conflicting data into meaningful personalized information that empowers the patient to make decisions about their life and body. This requires understanding, compassion, patience, and skill. This narrative literature review explores current communication practices, information preferences of oncology patients and their families, and communication strategies that may assist in these delicate interactions. Overwhelmingly, the literature suggests that whilst the majority of patients with advanced cancer do want to know their diagnosis and receive detailed prognostic information, this varies not only between individuals but also for a given individual over time. Barriers to the delivery and understanding of information exist on both sides of the physician–patient relationship, and family dynamics are also influential. Despite identifiable trends, the information preferences of a particular patient cannot be reliably predicted by demographic, cultural, or cancer-specific factors. Therefore, our primary recommendation is that the physician regularly asks the patient what information they would like to know, who else should be given the information and be involved in decision making, and how that information should be presented.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Can metaphors and analogies improve communication with seriously ill patients?

          It is not known how often physicians use metaphors and analogies, or whether they improve patients' perceptions of their physicians' ability to communicate effectively. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine whether the use of metaphors and analogies in difficult conversations is associated with better patient ratings of their physicians' communication skills. Cross-sectional observational study of audio-recorded conversations between patients and physicians. Three outpatient oncology practices. Ninety-four patients with advanced cancer and 52 physicians. None. Conversations were reviewed and coded for the presence of metaphors and analogies. Patients also completed a 6-item rating of their physician's ability to communicate. In a sample of 101 conversations, coders identified 193 metaphors and 75 analogies. Metaphors appeared in approximately twice as many conversations as analogies did (65/101, 64% versus 31/101, 31%; sign test p < 0.001). Conversations also contained more metaphors than analogies (mean 1.6, range 0-11 versus mean 0.6, range 0-5; sign rank test p < 0.001). Physicians who used more metaphors elicited better patient ratings of communication (rho = 0.27; p = 0.006), as did physicians who used more analogies (Spearman rho = 0.34; p < 0.001). The use of metaphors and analogies may enhance physicians' ability to communicate.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Patient-oncologist communication in advanced cancer: predictors of patient perception of prognosis.

            Advanced cancer patients' perceptions of prognosis, which are often overly optimistic compared to oncologist estimates, influence treatment preferences. The predictors of patients' perceptions and the effect of oncologist communication on patient understanding are unclear. This study was designed to identify the communication factors that influence patient-oncologist concordance about chance of cure. We analyzed audiorecorded encounters between 51 oncologists and 141 advanced cancer patients with good (n = 69) or poor (n = 72) concordance about chance of cure. Encounters were coded for communication factors that might influence oncologist-patient concordance, including oncologist statements of optimism and pessimism. Oncologists made more statements of optimism (mean = 3.3 per encounter) than statements of pessimism (mean = 1.2 per encounter). When oncologists made at least one statement of pessimism, patients were more likely to agree with their oncologist's estimated chance of cure (OR = 2.59, 95%CI = 1.31-5.12). Statements of optimism and uncertainty were not associated with an increased likelihood that patients would agree or disagree with their oncologists about chance of cure. Communication of pessimistic information to patients with advanced cancer increases the likelihood that patients will report concordant prognostic estimates. Communication of optimistic information does not have any direct effect. The best communication strategy to maximize patient knowledge for informed decision making while remaining sensitive to patients' emotional needs may be to emphasize optimistic aspects of prognosis while also consciously and clearly communicating pessimistic aspects of prognosis.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              An approach to understanding the interaction of hope and desire for explicit prognostic information among individuals with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or advanced cancer.

              Physicians often report that they are reluctant to discuss prognosis for life-threatening illnesses with patients and family out of concern for destroying their hope, yet there is little empirical research describing how patients and family incorporate their needs for hope with desires for prognostic information. We conducted a qualitative study to examine the perspectives of patients, family, physicians, and nurses on the simultaneous need for supporting hope and discussing prognosis. We conducted in-depth longitudinal qualitative interviews with patients with either advanced cancer or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), along with their family, physicians, and nurses. We used principles of grounded theory to analyze the transcripts and evaluated a conceptual model with four diagrams depicting different types of approaches to hope and prognostic information. We interviewed 55 patients, 36 family members, 31 physicians, and 25 nurses representing 220 hours of interviews. Asking patients directly "how much information" they wanted was, by itself, not useful for identifying information needs, but in-depth questioning identified variability in patients' and family members' desires for explicit prognostic information. All but 2 patients endorsed at least one of the diagrams concerning the interaction of hope and prognostic information and some patients described moving from one diagram to another over the course of their illness. Respondents also described two different approaches to communication about prognosis based on the diagram selected: two of the four diagrams suggested a direct approach and the other two suggested a cautious, indirect approach. This study found important variability in the ways different patients with life-limiting illnesses approach the interaction of wanting support for hope and prognostic information from their clinicians. The four-diagram approach may help clinicians understand individual patients and families, but further research is needed to determine the utility of these diagrams for improving communication about end-of-life care.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cancer Manag Res
                Cancer Management and Research
                Cancer Management and Research
                Dove Medical Press
                1179-1322
                2011
                24 May 2011
                : 3
                : 191-199
                Affiliations
                Southern Adelaide Palliative Services, Repatriation General Hospital, Daw Park, SA, Australia
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Bethany Russell, Southern Adelaide Palliative Services, Repatriation General Hospital, 700, Goodwood Road, Daw Park, SA 5041, Australia, Tel +61 8 82751732, Fax +61 8 82774957, Email bethany.russell@ 123456health.sa.gov.au
                Article
                cmr-3-191
                10.2147/CMR.S12998
                3139480
                21792328
                f1056873-eaae-432c-a5cc-4e8c770db082
                © 2011 Russell and Ward, publisher and licensee Dove Medical Press Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 23 May 2011
                Categories
                Review

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                physician–patient relations,metastatic,communication,prognosis
                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                physician–patient relations, metastatic, communication, prognosis

                Comments

                Comment on this article