Jennifer Philip1, Michelle Gold, Max Schwarz, Paul Komesaroff. 1. Palliative Care Service, Centre for Palliative Care Education and Research, St. Vincent's Hospital and University of Melbourne, Fitzroy, Melbourne, Victoria 3065, Australia. Jennifer.philip@svhm.org.au
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Second medical opinions (SMOs) are common in oncology practice, but the nature of these consultations has received relatively little attention. This study examines the views of patients with advanced cancer and their physicians of SMOs. METHOD: Parallel, concurrent surveys were developed for patients and physicians. The first was distributed to outpatients with advanced cancer-attending specialist clinics in an Australian quaternary hospital. The second survey, developed on the basis of results of exploratory interviews with medical oncologists, was distributed to medical oncologists in Australia. RESULTS: Seventeen of fifty two (33%) patients had sought a SMO, most commonly prompted by concerns around communication with their first doctor, the extreme and desperate nature of their medical condition and the need for reassurance. Most (94%) patients found the SMO helpful, with satisfaction related to improved communication and reassurance. Patients were concerned that seeking a second medical opinion may affect their relationship with their primary doctor. Most physicians (82%) reported seeing between one and five SMO per month, with patients being motivated by the need for additional information and reassurance. Physicians regarded SMO patients as having greater information needs (84%), greater psychosocial needs (58%) and requiring more of the physician's time and energy (77%) than other patients. CONCLUSION: SMOs are common in cancer care with most patients motivated by the need for improved communication, additional information and reassurance. Physicians identify patients who seek SMOs as having additional psychosocial needs compared with other oncology patients.
INTRODUCTION: Second medical opinions (SMOs) are common in oncology practice, but the nature of these consultations has received relatively little attention. This study examines the views of patients with advanced cancer and their physicians of SMOs. METHOD: Parallel, concurrent surveys were developed for patients and physicians. The first was distributed to outpatients with advanced cancer-attending specialist clinics in an Australian quaternary hospital. The second survey, developed on the basis of results of exploratory interviews with medical oncologists, was distributed to medical oncologists in Australia. RESULTS: Seventeen of fifty two (33%) patients had sought a SMO, most commonly prompted by concerns around communication with their first doctor, the extreme and desperate nature of their medical condition and the need for reassurance. Most (94%) patients found the SMO helpful, with satisfaction related to improved communication and reassurance. Patients were concerned that seeking a second medical opinion may affect their relationship with their primary doctor. Most physicians (82%) reported seeing between one and five SMO per month, with patients being motivated by the need for additional information and reassurance. Physicians regarded SMOpatients as having greater information needs (84%), greater psychosocial needs (58%) and requiring more of the physician's time and energy (77%) than other patients. CONCLUSION: SMOs are common in cancer care with most patients motivated by the need for improved communication, additional information and reassurance. Physicians identify patients who seek SMOs as having additional psychosocial needs compared with other oncology patients.
Authors: Grace K Dy; Lishan Bekele; Lorelei J Hanson; Alfred Furth; Sumithra Mandrekar; Jeff A Sloan; Alex A Adjei Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: W A M Mellink; A M V Dulmen; Th Wiggers; P M M Spreeuwenberg; A M M Eggermont; J M Bensing Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-04-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Roberta E Goldman; Amy Sullivan; Anthony L Back; Stewart C Alexander; Robin K Matsuyama; Stephanie J Lee Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2009-01-09
Authors: Dana Ruetters; Christian Keinki; Sarah Schroth; Patrick Liebl; Jutta Huebner Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2015-12-21 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Liora Shmueli; Nadav Davidovitch; Joseph S Pliskin; Ran D Balicer; Igal Hekselman; Geva Greenfield Journal: Isr J Health Policy Res Date: 2017-12-08
Authors: E Heeg; Y A Civil; M A Hillen; C H Smorenburg; L A E Woerdeman; E J Groen; H A O Winter-Warnars; M T F D Vrancken Peeters Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-10-11 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Christian R Loehberg; Julia Meyer; Lothar Häberle; Carolin C Hack; Sebastian Jud; Alexander Hein; Marius Wunderle; Julius Emons; Paul Gass; Peter A Fasching; Sainab Egloffstein; Jessica Krebs; Yesim Erim; Matthias W Beckmann; Michael P Lux; Sonja Wasner Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2020-04-09 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: N C A van der Velden; M B A van der Kleij; V Lehmann; E M A Smets; J M L Stouthard; I Henselmans; M A Hillen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 3.390