Literature DB >> 10767752

Communication styles in the cancer consultation: preferences for a patient-centred approach.

S M Dowsett1, J L Saul, P N Butow, S M Dunn, M J Boyer, R Findlow, J Dunsmore.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Although doctor-patient communication has been the focus of numerous studies, there is a lack of empirical evidence on which to base a curriculum for teaching effective communication skills for use in an oncology setting. Research within the general practice area identifies patient-centred and doctor-centred behaviours as the most important dimensions of doctor-patient communication. This study examined patients and their relatives/friends' preferences for and satisfaction with patient-centred and doctor-centred consulting styles. It was argued that by determining patient preferences for consulting styles, specific recommendations for improving communication in the oncology setting could be formulated. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: One hundred and thirteen women who had been treated for breast cancer and 48 of their relatives or friends watched videotaped scenarios of an oncology consultation, using professional actors. Viewers were randomly allocated to either a good prognosis or poor prognosis video, in which the oncologist discussed the patient's diagnosis, treatment and prognosis. These segments were presented in both styles to allow viewers to directly compare and contrast the patient-centred and doctor-centred approach. Outcomes included style preference and satisfaction. Demographic details, information and involvement preferences, anxiety and depression levels were also obtained.
RESULTS: Both patients and their relatives or friends significantly preferred a patient-centred consulting style across all aspects of the consultation (p<0.0001), except within the treatment segment of the good prognosis video where there was no significant difference. One third of the viewers preferred a doctor-centred style for the treatment and prognosis segments. Predictors of a patient-centred style preference in the treatment and prognosis segments included watching a poor prognosis video (OR=2.45, 95% CI 1.04-5.81, p=0.04; OR=3.22, 95% CI 1.22-8.50, p=0.02, respectively), and being employed in a professional occupation (OR=2.38, 95% CI 1.02-5.53, p=0.04 for the treatment segment only). Satisfaction ratings varied within and across videos.
CONCLUSION: Despite some methodological limitations, this study provides empirical data indicating that patients and their relatives or friends prefer a patient-centred approach to the consultation, particularly when the patient has a poor prognosis. The fact that a substantial minority of patients preferred a doctor-centred style emphasizes the need to enhance physicians' abilities to recognize different patient needs throughout the consultation. Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10767752     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1611(200003/04)9:2<147::aid-pon443>3.0.co;2-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychooncology        ISSN: 1057-9249            Impact factor:   3.894


  40 in total

1.  Towards a global definition of patient centred care.

Authors:  M Stewart
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-02-24

2.  Improving clinical communication: a view from psychology.

Authors:  J Parker; E Coiera
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2000 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 3.  Communication training for professionals.

Authors:  Eoin Tiernan
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2003-10-14       Impact factor: 3.603

4.  Observational study of effect of patient centredness and positive approach on outcomes of general practice consultations.

Authors:  P Little; H Everitt; I Williamson; G Warner; M Moore; C Gould; K Ferrier; S Payne
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-10-20

5.  Dunno if you've any plans for the future: medical student indirect questioning in simulated oncology interviews.

Authors:  Céline Bourquin; Friedrich Stiefel; Alexandre Berney; Pascal Singy
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2012-03-02       Impact factor: 2.463

6.  Alignment of nephrology training with workforce, patient, and educational needs: an evidence based proposal.

Authors:  Cathie Lane; Mark Brown
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2011-10-06       Impact factor: 8.237

7.  The good news about giving bad news to patients.

Authors:  Neil J Farber; Susan Y Urban; Virginia U Collier; Joan Weiner; Ronald G Polite; Elizabeth B Davis; E Gil Boyer
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Impact of Patient Gender and Race and Physician Communication on Colorectal Cancer Diagnostic Visits in Primary Care.

Authors:  Heather L Rogers; Levent Dumenci; Ronald M Epstein; Laura A Siminoff
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2018-11-29       Impact factor: 2.681

9.  Cancer patient preferences for quality and length of life.

Authors:  Neal J Meropol; Brian L Egleston; Joanne S Buzaglo; Al B Benson; Donald J Cegala; Michael A Diefenbach; Linda Fleisher; Suzanne M Miller; Daniel P Sulmasy; Kevin P Weinfurt
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2008-12-15       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Person-centered clinical practice.

Authors:  Evelyn van Weel-Baumgarten
Journal:  Int J Integr Care       Date:  2010-01-29       Impact factor: 5.120

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.