R F Brown1, P N Butow, F Boyle, M H N Tattersall. 1. Medical Psychology Research Unit, Blackburn Building D06, University of Sydney, Camperdown NSW, Australia. brownr@mskcc.org
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Clinical trials have come to be regarded as the gold standard for treatment evaluation. However, many doctors and their patients experience difficulties when discussing trial participation, leading to poor accrual to trials and questionable quality of informed consent. We have previously developed a communication skills training program based on a typology for ethical communication about Phase II and III clinical trials within four categories. The training program consisted of a 1 day experiential workshop that included didactic teaching, exemplary video and role play. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the communication skills training workshop. METHOD: Oncologists were recruited from three major teaching hospitals conducting oncology outpatient clinics in three Australian capital cities. Ten oncologists and 90 of their adult cancer patients who were eligible for a Phase II or III clinical trial participated. Ninety informed consent consultations were audiotaped before (n = 59) and after (n = 31) training, and fully transcribed. The presence or absence of each domain component was coded and these were summed within categories. A coding manual was produced which enabled standardization of the coding procedure. Patients completed questionnaires before and after the consultation, and doctors completed a short measure of satisfaction after the consultation. RESULTS: Doctors increased their use of some aspects of shared decision-making behavior (t(87) = -1.945, p = 0.05) and described some aspects of essential ethical/clinical information more commonly. In addition they used less coercive behaviors (z = -1.976, p = 0.048). However, they did not provide more clinical information or structure their consultations in the recommended fashion. Patients in the post-training cohort reported more positive attitudes to clinical trials, but other outcomes were not affected by the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This short training programme demonstrated limited success in improving the oncologist's communication skills when gaining informed consent. A larger randomized controlled trial of extended training is now underway. Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INTRODUCTION: Clinical trials have come to be regarded as the gold standard for treatment evaluation. However, many doctors and their patients experience difficulties when discussing trial participation, leading to poor accrual to trials and questionable quality of informed consent. We have previously developed a communication skills training program based on a typology for ethical communication about Phase II and III clinical trials within four categories. The training program consisted of a 1 day experiential workshop that included didactic teaching, exemplary video and role play. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the communication skills training workshop. METHOD: Oncologists were recruited from three major teaching hospitals conducting oncology outpatient clinics in three Australian capital cities. Ten oncologists and 90 of their adult cancerpatients who were eligible for a Phase II or III clinical trial participated. Ninety informed consent consultations were audiotaped before (n = 59) and after (n = 31) training, and fully transcribed. The presence or absence of each domain component was coded and these were summed within categories. A coding manual was produced which enabled standardization of the coding procedure. Patients completed questionnaires before and after the consultation, and doctors completed a short measure of satisfaction after the consultation. RESULTS: Doctors increased their use of some aspects of shared decision-making behavior (t(87) = -1.945, p = 0.05) and described some aspects of essential ethical/clinical information more commonly. In addition they used less coercive behaviors (z = -1.976, p = 0.048). However, they did not provide more clinical information or structure their consultations in the recommended fashion. Patients in the post-training cohort reported more positive attitudes to clinical trials, but other outcomes were not affected by the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This short training programme demonstrated limited success in improving the oncologist's communication skills when gaining informed consent. A larger randomized controlled trial of extended training is now underway. Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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: M Jefford; L Mileshkin; J Matthews; H Raunow; C O'Kane; T Cavicchiolo; H Brasier; M Anderson; J Reynolds Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-02-23 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Richard F Brown; Phyllis N Butow; Ilona Juraskova; Karin Ribi; Daniela Gerber; Jurg Bernhard; Martin H N Tattersall Journal: Health Expect Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 3.377
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: Lauren M Hamel; Louis A Penner; Terrance L Albrecht; Elisabeth Heath; Clement K Gwede; Susan Eggly Journal: Cancer Control Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 3.302
Authors: I Juraskova; P Butow; A Lopez; M Seccombe; A Coates; F Boyle; N McCarthy; L Reaby; J F Forbes Journal: Health Expect Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Connie M Ulrich; Kathleen A Knafl; Sarah J Ratcliffe; Therese S Richmond; Christine Grady; Claiborne Miller-Davis; Gwenyth R Wallen Journal: AJOB Prim Res Date: 2012