OBJECTIVES: To explore patients' and family members' views on communication during cancer care and to identify those aspects of clinician-patient communication which were most important to patients and family members. METHODS: We conducted a secondary data analysis of qualitative data from 137 patients with cancer and family members of patients with cancer. We used a modified version of the constant comparative method and coding paradigm of grounded theory. RESULTS: Patients want sensitive, caring clinicians who provide information that they need, when they need it, in a way that they can understand; who listen and respond to questions and concerns, and who attempt to understand the patient's experience. Effective information exchange and a positive interpersonal relationship with the clinician were of fundamental importance to patients and family members. These were interrelated; for instance, failure to provide information a patient needed could damage the relationship, whereas excellent listening could foster the relationship. Information exchange and relationship were also integral to decision-making, managing uncertainty, responding to emotions, and self-management. Clinicians who were responsive to patients' needs beyond the immediate medical encounter were valued. CONCLUSIONS: The complexity of cancer care today suggests that efforts to improve communication must be multilevel, acknowledging and addressing patient, clinician, organizational and policy barriers, and facilitators. Measurement tools are needed to assess cancer patients' and family members' experiences with communication over the course of cancer care to provide meaningful, actionable feedback to those seeking to optimize their effectiveness in communicating with patients with cancer.
OBJECTIVES: To explore patients' and family members' views on communication during cancer care and to identify those aspects of clinician-patient communication which were most important to patients and family members. METHODS: We conducted a secondary data analysis of qualitative data from 137 patients with cancer and family members of patients with cancer. We used a modified version of the constant comparative method and coding paradigm of grounded theory. RESULTS:Patients want sensitive, caring clinicians who provide information that they need, when they need it, in a way that they can understand; who listen and respond to questions and concerns, and who attempt to understand the patient's experience. Effective information exchange and a positive interpersonal relationship with the clinician were of fundamental importance to patients and family members. These were interrelated; for instance, failure to provide information a patient needed could damage the relationship, whereas excellent listening could foster the relationship. Information exchange and relationship were also integral to decision-making, managing uncertainty, responding to emotions, and self-management. Clinicians who were responsive to patients' needs beyond the immediate medical encounter were valued. CONCLUSIONS: The complexity of cancer care today suggests that efforts to improve communication must be multilevel, acknowledging and addressing patient, clinician, organizational and policy barriers, and facilitators. Measurement tools are needed to assess cancerpatients' and family members' experiences with communication over the course of cancer care to provide meaningful, actionable feedback to those seeking to optimize their effectiveness in communicating with patients with cancer.
Authors: Sally Thorne; Elizabeth-Anne Armstrong; Susan R Harris; T Gregory Hislop; Charmaine Kim-Sing; Valerie Oglov; John L Oliffe; Kelli I Stajduhar Journal: Qual Health Res Date: 2009-10
Authors: Erin J Aiello Bowles; Leah Tuzzio; Cheryl J Wiese; Beth Kirlin; Sarah M Greene; Steven B Clauser; Edward H Wagner Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Kathleen M Mazor; Bridget Gaglio; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Gwen L Alexander; Azadeh Stark; Mark C Hornbrook; Kathleen Walsh; Jennifer Boggs; Celeste A Lemay; Cassandra Firneno; Colleen Biggins; Mary Ann Blosky; Neeraj K Arora Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2013-05-14 Impact factor: 3.840
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: Teresa L Hagan; Susan M Cohen; Margaret Q Rosenzweig; Kristin Zorn; Clement A Stone; Heidi S Donovan Journal: J Adv Nurs Date: 2017-12-11 Impact factor: 3.187
Authors: Kathleen M Mazor; Richard L Street; Valerie M Sue; Andrew E Williams; Borsika A Rabin; Neeraj K Arora Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2016-03-06