PURPOSE: To identify factors associated with patient-physician communication and to examine the impact of communication on patients' perception of having a treatment choice, actual treatment received, and satisfaction with care among older breast cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected from 613 pairs of surgeons and their older (greater-than-or-equal 67 years) patients diagnosed with localized breast cancer. Measures of patients' self-reported communication included physician- and patient-initiated communication and the number of treatment options discussed. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationships between communication and outcomes. RESULTS: Patients who reported that their surgeons mentioned more treatment options were 2.21 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.62 to 3.01) more likely to report being given a treatment choice, and 1.33 times (95% CI, 1.02 to 1.73) more likely to get breast-conserving surgery with radiation than other types of treatment. Surgeons who were trained in surgical oncology, or who treated a high volume of breast cancer patients (greater-than-or-equal 75% of practice), were more likely to initiate communication with patients (odds ratio [OR] = 1.62; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.56; and OR = 1.68; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.76, respectively). A high degree of physician-initiated communication, in turn, was associated with patients' perception of having a treatment choice (OR = 2.46; 95% CI, 1.29 to 4.70), and satisfaction with breast cancer care (OR = 2.13; 95% CI, 1.17 to 3.85) in the 3 to 6 months after surgery. CONCLUSION: Greater patient-physician communication was associated with a sense of choice, actual treatment, and satisfaction with care. Technical information and caring components of communication impacted outcomes differently. Thus, the quality of cancer care for older breast cancer patients may be improved through interventions that improve communication within the physician-patient dyad.
PURPOSE: To identify factors associated with patient-physician communication and to examine the impact of communication on patients' perception of having a treatment choice, actual treatment received, and satisfaction with care among older breast cancerpatients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected from 613 pairs of surgeons and their older (greater-than-or-equal 67 years) patients diagnosed with localized breast cancer. Measures of patients' self-reported communication included physician- and patient-initiated communication and the number of treatment options discussed. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationships between communication and outcomes. RESULTS:Patients who reported that their surgeons mentioned more treatment options were 2.21 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.62 to 3.01) more likely to report being given a treatment choice, and 1.33 times (95% CI, 1.02 to 1.73) more likely to get breast-conserving surgery with radiation than other types of treatment. Surgeons who were trained in surgical oncology, or who treated a high volume of breast cancerpatients (greater-than-or-equal 75% of practice), were more likely to initiate communication with patients (odds ratio [OR] = 1.62; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.56; and OR = 1.68; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.76, respectively). A high degree of physician-initiated communication, in turn, was associated with patients' perception of having a treatment choice (OR = 2.46; 95% CI, 1.29 to 4.70), and satisfaction with breast cancer care (OR = 2.13; 95% CI, 1.17 to 3.85) in the 3 to 6 months after surgery. CONCLUSION: Greater patient-physician communication was associated with a sense of choice, actual treatment, and satisfaction with care. Technical information and caring components of communication impacted outcomes differently. Thus, the quality of cancer care for older breast cancerpatients may be improved through interventions that improve communication within the physician-patient dyad.
Authors: Simon Smith; Muhammad Arsyad Bin Nordin; Tom Hinchy; Patrick Henn; Colm M P O'Tuathaigh Journal: Eur Geriatr Med Date: 2020-07-26 Impact factor: 1.710
Authors: Paula M Lantz; Nancy K Janz; Angela Fagerlin; Kendra Schwartz; Lihua Liu; Indu Lakhani; Barbara Salem; Steven J Katz Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Tinuke O Olagunju; Yihang Liu; Li-Jung Liang; James M Stomber; Jennifer J Griggs; Patricia A Ganz; Amardeep Thind; Rose C Maly Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sandi W Smith; Samantha Nazione; Carolyn Laplante; Michael R Kotowski; Charles Atkin; Christine M Skubisz; Cynthia Stohl Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2009 Apr-May
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Mark Kettler; Andrea J Cook; Berta M Geller; Leah Karliner; Diana L Miglioretti; Erin Aiello Bowles; Diana S Buist; Thomas H Gallagher; Joann G Elmore Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2009-05-12 Impact factor: 3.173
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