Heather L. Shepherd

Physician–patient–companion communication and decision-making: A systematic review of triadic medical consultations

OBJECTIVE To systematically review quantitative and qualitative studies exploring physician-adult patient-adult companion (triadic) communication and/or decision-making within all medical encounters. METHODS Studies were identified via database searches and reference lists. One author assessed eligibility of studies, verified by two co-authors. Data were extracted by one author and cross-checked for accuracy. Two authors assessed the quality of included articles using standardized criteria. RESULTS Of the 8409 titles identified, 52 studies were included. Summary statements and tables were developed for each of five identified themes. Results indicated companions regularly attended consultations, were frequently perceived as helpful, and assumed a variety of roles. However, their involvement often raised challenges. Patients with increased need were more often accompanied. Some companion behaviours were felt to be more helpful (e.g. informational support) and less helpful (e.g. dominating/demanding behaviours), and preferences for involvement varied widely. CONCLUSION Triadic communication in medical encounters can be helpful but challenging. Based on analysis of included studies, preliminary strategies for health professionals are proposed. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Preliminary strategies for health professionals include (i) encourage/involve companions, (ii) highlight helpful companion behaviours, (iii) clarify and agree upon role preferences of patient/companions. Future studies should develop and evaluate specific strategies for optimizing triadic consultations.

Can a "prompt list" empower cancer patients to ask relevant questions?

Abstracts and unpublished stu-dies were excluded. 36 Studies were included if a QPLwas provided to patients as part of a larger commu-nication intervention (eg, decision aids, informationbooklets, or coaching). Measures Because of the small number of RCT studies and thelarge variation in outcome measures between thema meta-analysis could not be performed. Objective,subjective, and psychometric measures were assessedseparately. Communication-related measures inclu-ded frequency and likelihood of patient questionasking coded from recorded consultations, patientself-report of questions asked, whether the QPLaided communication with the physician, perceivedhelpfulness or usefulness, and match between pre-ferred and perceived participation roles in the con-sultation. Patient psychological outcomes derivedfrom psychometric measures included anxiety, satis-faction with the consultation, depression, and psy-chological adjustment. Patient recall of medicalinformation postconsultation was also reported.226 CANCER July 15, 2008 / Volume 113 / Number 2

Three questions that patients can ask to improve the quality of information physicians give about treatment options: A cross-over trial

OBJECTIVE To test the effect of three questions (what are my options? what are the benefits and harms? and how likely are these?), on information provided by physicians about treatment options. METHODS We used a cross-over trial using two unannounced standardized patients (SPs) simulating a presentation of mild-moderate depression. One SP was assigned the intervention role (asking the questions), the other the control role. An intervention and control SP visited each physician, order allocated randomly. The study was conducted in family practices in Sydney, Australia, during 2008-09. Data were obtained from consultation audio-recordings. Information about treatment options and patient involvement were analyzed using the Assessing Communication about Evidence and Patient Preferences (ACEPP) tool and the OPTION tool. RESULTS Thirty-six SP visits were completed (18 intervention, 18 control). Scores were higher in intervention consultations than controls: ACEPP scores 21.4 vs. 16.6, p<0.001, difference 4.7 (95% CI 2.3-7.0) and OPTION scores 36 vs. 25, p=0.001, difference 11.5 (95% CI 5.1-17.8), indicating greater information provision and behavior supporting patient involvement. CONCLUSION Asking these three questions improved information given by family physicians and increased physician facilitation of patient involvement. Practice implications. These questions can drive evidence-based practice, strengthen patient-physician communication, and improve safety and quality.

Supporting Treatment Decision Making in Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Trial of a Decision Aid for Patients With Advanced Colorectal Cancer Considering Chemotherapy

PURPOSE Decision making in advanced cancer is increasingly complex. We developed a decision aid (DA) for patients with advanced colorectal cancer who are considering first-line chemotherapy and reviewing treatment options, prognostic information, and toxicities. We examined its impact on patient understanding, treatment decisions, decisional conflict, decision making, consultation satisfaction, anxiety, and quality of life by using a randomized trial design. PATIENTS AND METHODS In all, 207 patients with colorectal cancer who were considering first-line chemotherapy for metastatic disease were randomly assigned to receive a standard medical oncology consultation or a consultation in which the DA (take-home booklet with audio recording, reviewed by an oncologist) was used. Participants completed questionnaires postconsultation, postdecision, and 1 month later. RESULTS In this study, 100 patients were randomly assigned to the control arm, and 107 received the DA. Median age of the sample was 62 years, 58% were male, 89% had a performance status of 0 or 1, and 36% had received prior adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients receiving the DA demonstrated a greater increase in understanding of prognosis, options, and benefits, with higher overall understanding (P < .001). Decisional conflict, treatment decisions, and achievement of involvement preferences were similar between the groups. Anxiety was similar across groups and decreased over time. Most patients were confident in a decision during the first consultation; 74% chose chemotherapy, 7% supportive care alone, and 10% observation. CONCLUSION This randomized trial of a decision aid in advanced cancer showed that its use in advanced colorectal cancer improved patient understanding of prognosis, treatment options, risks, and benefits without increasing anxiety. DAs can improve informed consent and can be tested through randomized trials even in the advanced cancer setting.

The context influences doctors' support of shared decision-making in cancer care

Most cancer patients in westernised countries now want all information about their situation, good or bad, and many wish to be involved in decision-making. The attitudes to and use of shared decision-making (SDM) by cancer doctors is not well known. Australian cancer clinicians treating breast, colorectal, gynaecological, haematological, or urological cancer were surveyed to identify their usual approach to decision-making and their comfort with different decision-making styles when discussing treatment with patients. A response rate of 59% resulted in 624 complete surveys, which explored usual practice in discussing participation in decision-making, providing information, and perception of the role patients want to play. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of use of SDM. Most cancer doctors (62.4%) reported using SDM and being most comfortable with this approach. Differences were apparent between reported high comfort with SDM and less frequent usual practice. Multivariate analysis showed that specialisation in breast or urological cancers compared to other cancers (AOR 3.02), high caseload of new patients per month (AOR 2.81) and female gender (AOR 1.87) were each independently associated with increased likelihood of use of SDM. Barriers exist to the application of SDM by doctors according to clinical situation and clinician characteristics.

Development and evaluation of a decision aid for patients considering first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer

Objective  Treatment decisions in advanced breast cancer are complex, with enhanced quality of life and survival among important treatment goals. Patients with metastatic breast cancer face the decision of whether or not to have chemotherapy, and many wish to be involved in this decision. We report the development and evaluation of a decision aid (DA) designed to assist patients facing this treatment decision.

Can consumers learn to ask three questions to improve shared decision making? A feasibility study of the ASK (AskShareKnow) Patient–Clinician Communication Model® intervention in a primary health-care setting

To test the feasibility and assess the uptake and acceptability of implementing a consumer questions programme, AskShareKnow, to encourage consumers to use the questions ‘1. What are my options; 2. What are the possible benefits and harms of those options; 3. How likely are each of those benefits and harms to happen to me?’ These three questions have previously shown important effects in improving the quality of information provided during consultations and in facilitating patient involvement.

Preservation or division of the intercostobrachial nerve in axillary dissection for breast cancer: Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

PURPOSE Management of the ICBN during axillary dissection is controversial and the division of ICBN is often trivialised. The effect of dividing the ICBN, and its association with sensory disturbance, is unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of preserving the ICBN during axillary dissection. METHODS A systematic literature review and meta-analysis is performed according to the PRISMA and Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. RESULTS Three RCTs and four non-RCTs were reviewed. A meta-analysis demonstrated that the incidence of sensory disturbance was significantly lower with preservation of ICBN compared to division of the ICBN with Mantel-Haenzel combined odds ratio 0.31 (0.17-0.57, 95% CI). There was relatively low level of heterogeneity (I(2) = 19%, χ(2) = 2.48, df = 2). The sensory disturbance was more likely to be hyposensitivity when compared to hypersensitivity (p < 0.0001). No difference on number of lymph nodes dissected or operating time was noted. CONCLUSION This meta-analysis demonstrates that division of the ICBN is associated with higher risk of sensory disturbance, and that the nature of this sensory disturbance is more likely to be hyposensitivity, attributable to reduced nerve function.

Shared decision making in Australia in 2017

Shared decision making (SDM) is now firmly established within national clinical standards for accrediting hospitals, day procedure services, public dental services and medical education in Australia, with plans to align general practice, aged care and disability service. Implementation of these standards and training of health professionals is a key challenge for the Australian health sector at this time. Consumer involvement in health research, policy and clinical service governance has also increased, with a major focus on encouraging patients to ask questions during their clinical care. Tools to support shared decision making are increasingly used but there is a need for more systemic approaches to their development, cultural adaptation and implementation. Sustainable solutions to ensure tools are kept up-to-date with the best available evidence will be important for the future.

Enhancing international collaboration among early career researchers

OBJECTIVE The European Association of Communication in Healthcare (EACH) Early Career Researchers Network (ECRN) aims are to (1) promote international collaboration among young investigators and (2) provide a support network for future innovative communication research projects. In October 2009, Miami, USA at a workshop facilitated by the ECRN at the International Conference on Communication in Healthcare (ICCH) hosted by the American Academy of Communication in Healthcare we explored common facilitators and challenges faced by early career researchers in health communication research. METHODS Attendees introduced themselves, their research area(s) of interest, and listed one facilitator and one barrier for their career development. EACH ECRN members then led a discussion of facilitators and challenges encountered in communication research projects and career development. We discussed potential collaboration opportunities, future goals, and activities. RESULTS Having supportive collegial relationships, institutional support, job security, and funding are critical facilitators for early career investigators. Key challenges include difficulty with time management and prioritizing, limited resources, and contacts. CONCLUSION International collaboration among early career researchers is a feasible and effective means to address important challenges, by increasing opportunities for professional support and networking, problem-solving, discussion of data, and ultimately publishing. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Future AACH-EACH Early Career Researcher Networks should continue to build collaborations by developing shared research projects, papers, and other scholarly products.