OBJECTIVE: To determine quality of communication in routine oncology consultations from patient, physician, and observer perspectives, and to determine agreement of emotional function content in consultations from these three perspectives. METHODS: In total, 69 consultations were included. Perceived quality of communication and whether or not emotional functioning had been discussed was evaluated with patient- and physician-reported questionnaires. Observer perspective was evaluated by content analysis of audio records of the consultations. Agreement between perspectives was analyzed and means compared using linear mixed models. RESULTS: The patients' ratings of communication quality differed significantly from those of both the physician and observer. Observer and physician scores did not differ significantly. Physicians rated emotional functioning as discussed more often than was reported from patient and observer perspectives. CONCLUSION: The patients' view of the quality of communication differed from that of the physician and observer. Whether emotional functioning was discussed or not was also perceived differently by patients, physicians, and observer. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The underpinnings and implications of these results need to be further explored regarding how to move toward a higher degree of shared understanding, where different perspectives are more in alignment, and how to develop more valid methods for evaluating communication.
OBJECTIVE: To determine quality of communication in routine oncology consultations from patient, physician, and observer perspectives, and to determine agreement of emotional function content in consultations from these three perspectives. METHODS: In total, 69 consultations were included. Perceived quality of communication and whether or not emotional functioning had been discussed was evaluated with patient- and physician-reported questionnaires. Observer perspective was evaluated by content analysis of audio records of the consultations. Agreement between perspectives was analyzed and means compared using linear mixed models. RESULTS: The patients' ratings of communication quality differed significantly from those of both the physician and observer. Observer and physician scores did not differ significantly. Physicians rated emotional functioning as discussed more often than was reported from patient and observer perspectives. CONCLUSION: The patients' view of the quality of communication differed from that of the physician and observer. Whether emotional functioning was discussed or not was also perceived differently by patients, physicians, and observer. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The underpinnings and implications of these results need to be further explored regarding how to move toward a higher degree of shared understanding, where different perspectives are more in alignment, and how to develop more valid methods for evaluating communication.
Authors: Annemiek Visser; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Paulien H M Govaert; Margrethe S Schlooz; Lisette Jansen; Thijs van Dalen; Judith B Prins Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2015-01-13 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Joanne Greenhalgh; Kate Gooding; Elizabeth Gibbons; Sonia Dalkin; Judy Wright; Jose Valderas; Nick Black Journal: J Patient Rep Outcomes Date: 2018-09-15