Kim Brandes1, Phyllis N Butow2, Martin H N Tattersall2, Josephine M Clayton3, Patricia M Davidson4, Jane Young5, Ronald M Epstein6, Adam Walczak2. 1. Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: k.brandes@uva.nl. 2. Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 3. Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Hammond Care Palliative and Supportive Care Service, Greenwich Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 4. Cardiovascular and Chronic Care Centre, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia. 5. School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 6. Department of Family Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Centre, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to provide insight into how advanced cancer patients and their caregivers use a Question Prompt List (QPL) during a consultation and for preparation for future consultations. METHODS: Audiotaped consultations and follow-up phone calls of 28 advanced cancer patients were coded and content analyzed. Questions asked and concerns expressed in consultations were coded for initiator, content, inclusion in the QPL and exact wording. Patients' reported and future use of the QPL were coded from the phone calls. RESULTS: The majority of patients reported that they used the QPL. Questions asked by patients and caregivers predominately coincided with questions from the prognosis section of the QPL. Questions were rarely asked literally from the QPL, instead questions were tailored to patients' own circumstances. CONCLUSION: QPLs are useful to stimulate discussion on prognosis among advanced cancer patients and caregivers. Patients tailored questions from the QPL to their own circumstances which may suggest high involvement and engagement. The development of more specific tailored communication interventions for advanced cancer patients is warranted. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Implementation of QPLs in the advanced cancer setting may be beneficial for patients, caregivers and healthcare providers to facilitate discussion of topics such as prognosis.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to provide insight into how advanced cancerpatients and their caregivers use a Question Prompt List (QPL) during a consultation and for preparation for future consultations. METHODS: Audiotaped consultations and follow-up phone calls of 28 advanced cancerpatients were coded and content analyzed. Questions asked and concerns expressed in consultations were coded for initiator, content, inclusion in the QPL and exact wording. Patients' reported and future use of the QPL were coded from the phone calls. RESULTS: The majority of patients reported that they used the QPL. Questions asked by patients and caregivers predominately coincided with questions from the prognosis section of the QPL. Questions were rarely asked literally from the QPL, instead questions were tailored to patients' own circumstances. CONCLUSION: QPLs are useful to stimulate discussion on prognosis among advanced cancerpatients and caregivers. Patients tailored questions from the QPL to their own circumstances which may suggest high involvement and engagement. The development of more specific tailored communication interventions for advanced cancerpatients is warranted. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Implementation of QPLs in the advanced cancer setting may be beneficial for patients, caregivers and healthcare providers to facilitate discussion of topics such as prognosis.
Authors: Monica E Lemmon; Hanna E Huffstetler; Pamela Donohue; Madelaine Katz; Mary C Barks; Emma Schindler; Debra Brandon; Renee D Boss; Peter A Ubel Journal: J Child Neurol Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 1.987
Authors: Rebecca E Ryan; Michael Connolly; Natalie K Bradford; Simon Henderson; Anthony Herbert; Lina Schonfeld; Jeanine Young; Josephine I Bothroyd; Amanda Henderson Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-07-08
Authors: Nicole M Steffens; Jennifer L Tucholka; Michael J Nabozny; Andrea E Schmick; Karen J Brasel; Margaret L Schwarze Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Jennifer Freytag; Richard L Street; Deborah E Barnes; Ying Shi; Aiesha M Volow; Janet K Shim; Stewart C Alexander; Rebecca L Sudore Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: I Henselmans; E M A Smets; J C J M de Haes; M G W Dijkgraaf; F Y de Vos; H W M van Laarhoven Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-01-08 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Ronald M Epstein; Paul R Duberstein; Joshua J Fenton; Kevin Fiscella; Michael Hoerger; Daniel J Tancredi; Guibo Xing; Robert Gramling; Supriya Mohile; Peter Franks; Paul Kaesberg; Sandy Plumb; Camille S Cipri; Richard L Street; Cleveland G Shields; Anthony L Back; Phyllis Butow; Adam Walczak; Martin Tattersall; Alison Venuti; Peter Sullivan; Mark Robinson; Beth Hoh; Linda Lewis; Richard L Kravitz Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 31.777