OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether the content of information provided by radiation oncologists and their information giving performance increase patients' trust in them. METHODS: Questionnaires were used to assess radiotherapy patients (n=111) characteristics before their first consultation, perception of information giving after the first consultation and trust before the follow-up consultation. Videotaped consultations were scored for the content of the information provided and information giving performance. RESULTS: Patients mean trust score was 4.5 (sd=0.77). The more anxious patients were, the less they tended to fully trust their radiation oncologist (p=0.03). Patients' age, gender, educational attainment and anxious disposition together explained 7%; radiation oncologists' information giving (content and performance) explained 3%, and patients' perception of radiation oncologists' information-giving explained an additional 4% of the variance in trust scores. CONCLUSION: It can be questioned whether trust is a sensitive patient reported outcome of quality of communication in highly vulnerable patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: It is important to note that trust may not be a good patient reported outcome of quality of care. Concerning radiation oncologists' information giving performance, our data suggest that they can particularly improve their assessments of patients' understanding.
OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether the content of information provided by radiation oncologists and their information giving performance increase patients' trust in them. METHODS: Questionnaires were used to assess radiotherapy patients (n=111) characteristics before their first consultation, perception of information giving after the first consultation and trust before the follow-up consultation. Videotaped consultations were scored for the content of the information provided and information giving performance. RESULTS:Patients mean trust score was 4.5 (sd=0.77). The more anxiouspatients were, the less they tended to fully trust their radiation oncologist (p=0.03). Patients' age, gender, educational attainment and anxious disposition together explained 7%; radiation oncologists' information giving (content and performance) explained 3%, and patients' perception of radiation oncologists' information-giving explained an additional 4% of the variance in trust scores. CONCLUSION: It can be questioned whether trust is a sensitive patient reported outcome of quality of communication in highly vulnerable patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: It is important to note that trust may not be a good patient reported outcome of quality of care. Concerning radiation oncologists' information giving performance, our data suggest that they can particularly improve their assessments of patients' understanding.
Authors: Sebastiaan M Stuij; Nanon H M Labrie; Sandra van Dulmen; Marie José Kersten; Noor Christoph; Robert L Hulsman; Ellen Smets Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 2.463