PURPOSE: We wanted to assess the effectiveness of intensive education for physicians compared with a traditional session on communicating with breast cancer patients. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in practices in London, Hamilton, and Toronto, Canada, with 17 family physicians, 16 surgeons, and 18 oncologists, and with 102 patients of the surgeons and oncologists. Doctors were randomized to 1 of 2 continuing education approaches: a traditional 2-hour version (control group), or a new 6-hour intensive version including exploring the patients' perspectives and reviewing videotapes and receiving feedback (intervention group). Communication behavior of the physicians was measured objectively both before and after the intervention. As well, 4 postintervention patient outcomes were measured, by design only for surgeons and oncologists: patient-centerdness of the visit, satisfaction, psychological distress, and feeling better. RESULTS: No significant differences were found on the communication score of the intervention vs the control physicians when controlling for preintervention communication scores. Intervention family physicians, however, had significantly higher communication subscores than control family physicians. Also, patients of the intervention surgeons and oncologists were significantly more satisfied (scores of 82.06 vs 77.78, P = .03) and felt better (88.2% vs 70.6%, P=.02) than patients of the control surgeons and oncologists when controlling for covariates and adjusting for clustering within doctor. CONCLUSIONS: The continuing medical education intervention was effective in terms of some but not all physician and patient outcomes.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: We wanted to assess the effectiveness of intensive education for physicians compared with a traditional session on communicating with breast cancerpatients. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in practices in London, Hamilton, and Toronto, Canada, with 17 family physicians, 16 surgeons, and 18 oncologists, and with 102 patients of the surgeons and oncologists. Doctors were randomized to 1 of 2 continuing education approaches: a traditional 2-hour version (control group), or a new 6-hour intensive version including exploring the patients' perspectives and reviewing videotapes and receiving feedback (intervention group). Communication behavior of the physicians was measured objectively both before and after the intervention. As well, 4 postintervention patient outcomes were measured, by design only for surgeons and oncologists: patient-centerdness of the visit, satisfaction, psychological distress, and feeling better. RESULTS: No significant differences were found on the communication score of the intervention vs the control physicians when controlling for preintervention communication scores. Intervention family physicians, however, had significantly higher communication subscores than control family physicians. Also, patients of the intervention surgeons and oncologists were significantly more satisfied (scores of 82.06 vs 77.78, P = .03) and felt better (88.2% vs 70.6%, P=.02) than patients of the control surgeons and oncologists when controlling for covariates and adjusting for clustering within doctor. CONCLUSIONS: The continuing medical education intervention was effective in terms of some but not all physician and patient outcomes.
Authors: Julie Easley; Baukje Miedema; June C Carroll; Mary Ann O'Brien; Donna P Manca; Eva Grunfeld Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Adrienne Boissy; Amy K Windover; Dan Bokar; Matthew Karafa; Katie Neuendorf; Richard M Frankel; James Merlino; Michael B Rothberg Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Marie C Haverfield; Aaron Tierney; Rachel Schwartz; Michelle B Bass; Cati Brown-Johnson; Dani L Zionts; Nadia Safaeinili; Meredith Fischer; Jonathan G Shaw; Sonoo Thadaney; Gabriella Piccininni; Karl A Lorenz; Steven M Asch; Abraham Verghese; Donna M Zulman Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-01-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Juan Ignacio Arraras; Lisa M Wintner; Monika Sztankay; Krzysztof A Tomaszewski; Dirk Hofmeister; Anna Costantini; Anne Bredart; Teresa Young; Karin Kuljanic; Iwona M Tomaszewska; Meropi Kontogianni; Wei-Chu Chie; Dagmara Kulis; Eva Greimel Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-12-26 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Louise Forsetlund; Mary Ann O'Brien; Lisa Forsén; Liv Merete Reinar; Mbah P Okwen; Tanya Horsley; Christopher J Rose Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-09-15
Authors: Brian M Shelley; Andrew L Sussman; Robert L Williams; Alissa R Segal; Benjamin F Crabtree Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2009 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Louise Forsetlund; Arild Bjørndal; Arash Rashidian; Gro Jamtvedt; Mary Ann O'Brien; Fredric Wolf; Dave Davis; Jan Odgaard-Jensen; Andrew D Oxman Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-04-15