Paul K J Han1,2, Nathan F Dieckmann3,4, Christina Holt5, Caitlin Gutheil1, Ellen Peters1,6. 1. Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME (PKJH, CG) 2. Tufts University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, Boston, MA (PKJH) 3. School of Nursing & School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR (NFD) 4. Decision Research, Eugene, OR (NFD) 5. Department of Family Medicine, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME (CH) 6. Department of Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH (EP)
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the effects of personalized prognostic information on physicians' intentions to communicate prognosis to cancer patients at the end of life, and to identify factors that moderate these effects. METHODS: A factorial experiment was conducted in which 93 family medicine physicians were presented with a hypothetical vignette depicting an end-stage gastric cancer patient seeking prognostic information. Physicians' intentions to communicate prognosis were assessed before and after provision of personalized prognostic information, while emotional distress of the patient and ambiguity (imprecision) of the prognostic estimate were varied between subjects. General linear models were used to test the effects of personalized prognostic information, patient distress, and ambiguity on prognostic communication intentions, and potential moderating effects of 1) perceived patient distress, 2) perceived credibility of prognostic models, 3) physician numeracy (objective and subjective), and 4) physician aversion to risk and ambiguity. RESULTS: Provision of personalized prognostic information increased prognostic communication intentions (P < 0.001, η(2) = 0.38), although experimentally manipulated patient distress and prognostic ambiguity had no effects. Greater change in communication intentions was positively associated with higher perceived credibility of prognostic models (P = 0.007, η(2) = 0.10), higher objective numeracy (P = 0.01, η(2) = 0.09), female sex (P = 0.01, η(2) = 0.08), and lower perceived patient distress (P = 0.02, η(2) = 0.07). Intentions to communicate available personalized prognostic information were positively associated with higher perceived credibility of prognostic models (P = 0.02, η(2) = 0.09), higher subjective numeracy (P = 0.02, η(2) = 0.08), and lower ambiguity aversion (P = 0.06, η(2) = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Provision of personalized prognostic information increases physicians' prognostic communication intentions to a hypothetical end-stage cancer patient, and situational and physician characteristics moderate this effect. More research is needed to confirm these findings and elucidate the determinants of prognostic communication at the end of life.
PURPOSE: To explore the effects of personalized prognostic information on physicians' intentions to communicate prognosis to cancerpatients at the end of life, and to identify factors that moderate these effects. METHODS: A factorial experiment was conducted in which 93 family medicine physicians were presented with a hypothetical vignette depicting an end-stage gastric cancerpatient seeking prognostic information. Physicians' intentions to communicate prognosis were assessed before and after provision of personalized prognostic information, while emotional distress of the patient and ambiguity (imprecision) of the prognostic estimate were varied between subjects. General linear models were used to test the effects of personalized prognostic information, patient distress, and ambiguity on prognostic communication intentions, and potential moderating effects of 1) perceived patient distress, 2) perceived credibility of prognostic models, 3) physician numeracy (objective and subjective), and 4) physician aversion to risk and ambiguity. RESULTS: Provision of personalized prognostic information increased prognostic communication intentions (P < 0.001, η(2) = 0.38), although experimentally manipulated patient distress and prognostic ambiguity had no effects. Greater change in communication intentions was positively associated with higher perceived credibility of prognostic models (P = 0.007, η(2) = 0.10), higher objective numeracy (P = 0.01, η(2) = 0.09), female sex (P = 0.01, η(2) = 0.08), and lower perceived patient distress (P = 0.02, η(2) = 0.07). Intentions to communicate available personalized prognostic information were positively associated with higher perceived credibility of prognostic models (P = 0.02, η(2) = 0.09), higher subjective numeracy (P = 0.02, η(2) = 0.08), and lower ambiguity aversion (P = 0.06, η(2) = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Provision of personalized prognostic information increases physicians' prognostic communication intentions to a hypothetical end-stage cancerpatient, and situational and physician characteristics moderate this effect. More research is needed to confirm these findings and elucidate the determinants of prognostic communication at the end of life.
Keywords:
affect and emotion; numeracy; physician-patient communication; provider decision making; risk communication or risk perception; shared decision making
Authors: Paul K J Han; Minjung Lee; Bryce B Reeve; Angela B Mariotto; Zhuoqiao Wang; Ron D Hays; K Robin Yabroff; Marie Topor; Eric J Feuer Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2011-11-08 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Josephine M Clayton; Karen M Hancock; Phyllis N Butow; Martin H N Tattersall; David C Currow; Jonathan Adler; Sanchia Aranda; Kirsten Auret; Fran Boyle; Annette Britton; Richard Chye; Katy Clark; Patricia Davidson; Jan Maree Davis; Afaf Girgis; Sara Graham; Janet Hardy; Kate Introna; John Kearsley; Ian Kerridge; Linda Kristjanson; Peter Martin; Amanda McBride; Anne Meller; Geoffrey Mitchell; Alison Moore; Beverley Noble; Ian Olver; Sharon Parker; Matthew Peters; Peter Saul; Cameron Stewart; Lyn Swinburne; Bernadette Tobin; Kathryn Tuckwell; Patsy Yates Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2007-06-18 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Amber E Barnato; Heather E Hsu; Cindy L Bryce; Judith R Lave; Lillian L Emlet; Derek C Angus; Robert M Arnold Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Karen Hancock; Josephine M Clayton; Sharon M Parker; Sharon Wal der; Phyllis N Butow; Sue Carrick; David Currow; Davina Ghersi; Paul Glare; Rebecca Hagerty; Martin H N Tattersall Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Paul K J Han; Norbert Hootsmans; Michael Neilson; Bethany Roy; Terence Kungel; Caitlin Gutheil; Michael Diefenbach; Moritz Hansen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-09-13 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: David Hui; Carlos Eduardo Paiva; Egidio G Del Fabbro; Christopher Steer; Jane Naberhuis; Marianne van de Wetering; Paz Fernández-Ortega; Tatsuya Morita; Sang-Yeon Suh; Eduardo Bruera; Masanori Mori Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-03-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Heather M Derry; Andrew S Epstein; Wendy G Lichtenthal; Holly G Prigerson Journal: Expert Rev Anticancer Ther Date: 2019-08-10 Impact factor: 4.512