Literature DB >> 10560442

Communicating prognosis in early breast cancer: do women understand the language used?

E A Lobb1, P N Butow, D T Kenny, M H Tattersall.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the degree to which women with early breast cancer understand the prognostic information communicated by clinicians after breast cancer diagnosis, and their preferences for how this information is presented.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey conducted within two months of breast cancer diagnosis, using a self-administered written questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS AND
SETTING: One hundred women attending five Sydney teaching hospitals and one country hospital, who were diagnosed with early stage breast cancer between January and December 1997.
RESULTS: The 100 respondents represented 70% of the 143 women originally approached to participate. Many respondents did not fully understand the language typically used by surgeons and cancer specialists to describe prognosis: 53% could not calculate risk reduction (with adjuvant therapy) relative to absolute risk; 73% did not understand the term "median" survival; and 33% believed a cancer specialist could predict an individual patient's outcome. Women in professional/paraprofessional occupations understood more prognostic information than nonprofessional women. There was no agreement on the descriptive equivalent of a "30%" risk, nor the numerical interpretation of a "good" chance of survival. Forty-three per cent of women preferred positively framed messages (e.g., "chance of cure"), and 33% negatively framed messages (e.g., "chance of relapse"). The information women most wanted was that relating to probability of cure, staging of their cancer, chances of treatment being successful, and 10-year survival figures with and without adjuvant therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that misunderstanding is responsible for women's confusion about breast cancer prognosis. Clinicians should use a variety of techniques to communicate prognosis and risk, and need to verify that the information has been understood.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10560442

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med J Aust        ISSN: 0025-729X            Impact factor:   7.738


  23 in total

1.  Tragic knowledge: truth telling and the maintenance of hope in surgery.

Authors:  Megha Suri; Martin McKneally; Karen Devon
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Patient access to clinical notes in oncology: A mixed method analysis of oncologists' attitudes and linguistic characteristics towards notes.

Authors:  Jordan M Alpert; Bonny B Morris; Maria D Thomson; Khalid Matin; Roy T Sabo; Richard F Brown
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2019-05-07

3.  Assessing the quality of initial consultations regarding adjuvant colon cancer therapy.

Authors:  Hanna K Sanoff; Richard M Goldberg; Michael P Pignone
Journal:  Clin Colorectal Cancer       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.481

4.  Pushing up daisies: implicit and explicit language in oncologist-patient communication about death.

Authors:  Keri L Rodriguez; Frank J Gambino; Phyllis Butow; Rebecca Hagerty; Robert M Arnold
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2006-09-13       Impact factor: 3.603

5.  Resident preparedness in discussing prognosis in patients with advanced lung cancer.

Authors:  Paul Wheatley-Price; Christine Massey; Tony Panzarella; Frances A Shepherd; Joseph Mikhael
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 3.603

6.  An Internet method to assess cancer patient information needs and enhance doctor-patient communication: a pilot study.

Authors:  Joanne S Buzaglo; Jennifer L Millard; Caroline G Ridgway; Eric A Ross; Susan P Antaramian; Suzanne M Miller; Neal J Meropol
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.037

7.  Attitudes toward participation in breast cancer randomized clinical trials in the African American community: a focus group study.

Authors:  Hannah M Linden; Lisa M Reisch; Alton Hart; Margaret A Harrington; Connie Nakano; J Carey Jackson; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Cancer Nurs       Date:  2007 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.592

8.  Day One Talk: parent preferences when learning that their child has cancer.

Authors:  Rachel M Kessel; Michael Roth; Karen Moody; Adam Levy
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2013-06-13       Impact factor: 3.603

9.  Factors that determine satisfaction with surgical treatment of low-income women with breast cancer.

Authors:  Amardeep Thind; Allison Diamant; Yihang Liu; Rose Maly
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2009-11

10.  Representations and coverage of non-English-speaking immigrants and multicultural issues in three major Australian health care publications.

Authors:  Pamela W Garrett; Hugh G Dickson; Anna Klinken Whelan; Linda Whyte
Journal:  Aust New Zealand Health Policy       Date:  2010-01-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.