OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a training intervention aimed at improving healthcare professionals' communication with cancer patients about randomised clinical trials. DESIGN: Before and after evaluation of training programme. SETTING: Members of the National Cancer Research Network, Scottish Trials Network, and the Welsh Cancer Trials Network. PARTICIPANTS: 101 healthcare professionals (33 clinicians and 68 research nurses). INTERVENTION: Four modules delivered by a trained facilitator using videotapes and interactive exercises to cover general issues about discussing randomised clinical trials with patients, problems specific to adjuvant trials, trials with palliation as the goal, and trials where patients had a strong preference for one treatment arm. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Before and after the intervention, participants were videotaped discussing a trial with an actor portraying a patient. These consultations were assessed for presence of information required by good clinical practice guidelines. The actor patients gave an assessment after each interview. Participants reported their self confidence about key aspects of trial discussion. RESULTS: Analysis of the videotaped consultations showed that, after intervention, significantly more participants displayed key communication behaviours such as explaining randomisation (69 v 81, odds ratio 2.33, P = 0.033), checking patients' understanding (11 v 31, odds ratio 3.22, P = 0.002), and discussing standard treatment (73 v 88, odds ratio 4.75, P = 0.005) and side effects (69 v 85, odds ratio 3.29, P = 0.006). Participants' self confidence increased significantly (P < 0.001) across all areas. Actor patients' ratings of participants' communication showed significant improvements for 12/15 key items. CONCLUSION: This intensive 8 hour intervention significantly improved participants' confidence and competence when communicating about randomised clinical trials.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a training intervention aimed at improving healthcare professionals' communication with cancerpatients about randomised clinical trials. DESIGN: Before and after evaluation of training programme. SETTING: Members of the National Cancer Research Network, Scottish Trials Network, and the Welsh Cancer Trials Network. PARTICIPANTS: 101 healthcare professionals (33 clinicians and 68 research nurses). INTERVENTION: Four modules delivered by a trained facilitator using videotapes and interactive exercises to cover general issues about discussing randomised clinical trials with patients, problems specific to adjuvant trials, trials with palliation as the goal, and trials where patients had a strong preference for one treatment arm. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Before and after the intervention, participants were videotaped discussing a trial with an actor portraying a patient. These consultations were assessed for presence of information required by good clinical practice guidelines. The actor patients gave an assessment after each interview. Participants reported their self confidence about key aspects of trial discussion. RESULTS: Analysis of the videotaped consultations showed that, after intervention, significantly more participants displayed key communication behaviours such as explaining randomisation (69 v 81, odds ratio 2.33, P = 0.033), checking patients' understanding (11 v 31, odds ratio 3.22, P = 0.002), and discussing standard treatment (73 v 88, odds ratio 4.75, P = 0.005) and side effects (69 v 85, odds ratio 3.29, P = 0.006). Participants' self confidence increased significantly (P < 0.001) across all areas. Actor patients' ratings of participants' communication showed significant improvements for 12/15 key items. CONCLUSION: This intensive 8 hour intervention significantly improved participants' confidence and competence when communicating about randomised clinical trials.
Authors: Janet E Pope; David P Tingey; J Malcolm O Arnold; Paul Hong; Janine M Ouimet; Adriana Krizova Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Margo Michaels; Elisa S Weiss; John A Guidry; Natasha Blakeney; Liz Swords; Brian Gibbs; Samantha Yeun; Bruce Rytkonen; Robert Goodman; S Lisbeth Jarama; Amanda L Greene; Shilpa Patel Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Linda K Parreco; Rhonda W DeJoice; Holly A Massett; Rose Mary Padberg; Sona S Thakkar Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2012-03-27 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: David E Gerber; Drew W Rasco; Celette Sugg Skinner; Jonathan E Dowell; Jingsheng Yan; Jennifer R Sayne; Yang Xie Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2011-12-06 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Richard E Appleton; Naomi Ea Rainford; Carrol Gamble; Shrouk Messahel; Amy Humphreys; Helen Hickey; Kerry Woolfall; Louise Roper; Joanne Noblet; Elizabeth Lee; Sarah Potter; Paul Tate; Nadia Al Najjar; Anand Iyer; Vicki Evans; Mark D Lyttle Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: P Butow; R Brown; J Aldridge; I Juraskova; P Zoller; F Boyle; M Wilson; J Bernhard Journal: Health Expect Date: 2014-06-30 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Andrea M Denicoff; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Stephen S Grubbs; Suanna S Bruinooge; Robert L Comis; Peggy Devine; David M Dilts; Michelle E Duff; Jean G Ford; Steven Joffe; Lidia Schapira; Kevin P Weinfurt; Margo Michaels; Derek Raghavan; Ellen S Richmond; Robin Zon; Terrance L Albrecht; Michael A Bookman; Afshin Dowlati; Rebecca A Enos; Mona N Fouad; Marjorie Good; William J Hicks; Patrick J Loehrer; Alan P Lyss; Steven N Wolff; Debra M Wujcik; Neal J Meropol Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Richard F Brown; Debbie L Cadet; Robert H Houlihan; Maria D Thomson; Emily C Pratt; Amy Sullivan; Laura A Siminoff Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 3.840