OBJECTIVE: Patients' recall of provided information during bad news consultations is poor. According to the attentional narrowing hypothesis, the emotional arousal caused by the bad news might be responsible for this hampered information processing. Because affective communication has proven to be effective in tempering patients' emotional reactions, the current study used an experimental design to explore whether physician's affective communication in bad news consultations decreases patients' anxiety and uncertainty and improves information recall. METHOD: Two scripted video-vignettes of a bad news consultation were used in which the physician's verbal communication was manipulated (standard vs. affective condition). Fifty healthy women (i.e., analogue patients) randomly watched 1 of the 2 videos. The effect of communication on participants' anxiety, uncertainty, and recall was assessed by self-report questionnaires. Additionally, a moderator analysis was performed. RESULTS:Affective communication reduced anxiety (p = .01) and uncertainty (p = .04), and improved recall (p = .05), especially for information about prognosis (p = .04) and, to some extent, for treatment options (p = .07). The moderating effect of (reduced) anxiety and uncertainty on recall could not be confirmed and showed a trend for uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Physicians' affective communication can temper patients' anxiety and uncertainty during bad news consultations, and enhance their ability to recall medical information. The reduction of anxiety and uncertainty could not explain patients' enhanced recall, which leaves the underlying mechanism unspecified. Our findings underline the importance of addressing patients' emotions and provide empirical support to incorporate this in clinical guidelines and recommendations. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE:Patients' recall of provided information during bad news consultations is poor. According to the attentional narrowing hypothesis, the emotional arousal caused by the bad news might be responsible for this hampered information processing. Because affective communication has proven to be effective in tempering patients' emotional reactions, the current study used an experimental design to explore whether physician's affective communication in bad news consultations decreases patients' anxiety and uncertainty and improves information recall. METHOD: Two scripted video-vignettes of a bad news consultation were used in which the physician's verbal communication was manipulated (standard vs. affective condition). Fifty healthy women (i.e., analogue patients) randomly watched 1 of the 2 videos. The effect of communication on participants' anxiety, uncertainty, and recall was assessed by self-report questionnaires. Additionally, a moderator analysis was performed. RESULTS: Affective communication reduced anxiety (p = .01) and uncertainty (p = .04), and improved recall (p = .05), especially for information about prognosis (p = .04) and, to some extent, for treatment options (p = .07). The moderating effect of (reduced) anxiety and uncertainty on recall could not be confirmed and showed a trend for uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Physicians' affective communication can temper patients' anxiety and uncertainty during bad news consultations, and enhance their ability to recall medical information. The reduction of anxiety and uncertainty could not explain patients' enhanced recall, which leaves the underlying mechanism unspecified. Our findings underline the importance of addressing patients' emotions and provide empirical support to incorporate this in clinical guidelines and recommendations. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved.
Authors: Jada G Hamilton; Sarah E Lillie; Dana L Alden; Laura Scherer; Megan Oser; Christine Rini; Miho Tanaka; John Baleix; Mikki Brewster; Simon Craddock Lee; Mary K Goldstein; Robert M Jacobson; Ronald E Myers; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Erika A Waters Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2016-08-26
Authors: Rochelle Watson; Jamie Bryant; Robert Sanson-Fisher; Heidi Turon; Lisa Hyde; Anne Herrmann Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-10-30 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Niki M Medendorp; Marij A Hillen; Leonie N C Visser; Cora M Aalfs; Floor A M Duijkers; Klaartje van Engelen; Margreet G E M Ausems; Senno Verhoef; Anne M Stiggelbout; Ellen M A Smets Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 5.351
Authors: Ilona Fridman; Paul A Glare; Stacy M Stabler; Andrew S Epstein; Alison Wiesenthal; Thomas W Leblanc; E Tory Higgins Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Deborah A Forst; Kit Quain; Sophia L Landay; Maya Anand; Emilia Kaslow-Zieve; Michelle M Mesa; Jamie M Jacobs; Jorg Dietrich; Michael W Parsons; Nora Horick; Joseph A Greer; Tracy T Batchelor; Vicki A Jackson; Areej El-Jawahri; Jennifer S Temel Journal: Neurooncol Pract Date: 2020-04-17
Authors: Fay J Hlubocky; Tamara G Sher; David Cella; Kristen E Wroblewski; Jeffery Peppercorn; Christopher K Daugherty Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-02
Authors: Hinke Hoffstädt; Jacqueline Stouthard; Maartje C Meijers; Janine Westendorp; Inge Henselmans; Peter Spreeuwenberg; Paul de Jong; Sandra van Dulmen; Liesbeth M van Vliet Journal: Palliat Med Rep Date: 2020-06-11