Adam Walczak1, Phyllis N Butow2, Martin H N Tattersall3, Patricia M Davidson4, Jane Young5, Ronald M Epstein6, Daniel S J Costa7, Josephine M Clayton8. 1. Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: adam.walczak@sydney.edu.au. 2. Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Psycho-Oncology Cooperative Research Group (PoCoG), The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 3. Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 4. John Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, USA. 5. School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 6. Department of Family Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Centre, NY, USA. 7. Psycho-Oncology Cooperative Research Group (PoCoG), The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 8. Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; HammondCare Palliative and Supportive Care Service, Greenwich Hospital, Greenwich Australia, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients are often not given the information needed to understand their prognosis and make informed treatment choices, with many consequently experiencing less than optimal care and quality-of-life at end-of-life. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of a nurse-facilitated communication support program for patients with advanced, incurable cancer to assist them in discussing prognosis and end-of-life care. DESIGN: A parallel-group randomised controlled trial design was used. SETTINGS: This trial was conducted at six cancer treatment centres affiliated with major hospitals in Sydney, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 110 patients with advanced, incurable cancer participated. METHODS: The communication support program included guided exploration of a question prompt list, communication challenges, patient values and concerns and the value of discussing end-of-life care early, with oncologists cued to endorse question-asking and question prompt list use. Patients were randomised after baseline measure completion, a regular oncology consultation was audio-recorded and a follow-up questionnaire was completed one month later. Communication, health-related quality-of-life and satisfaction measures and a manualised consultation-coding scheme were used. Descriptive, Mixed Modelling and Generalised Linear Mixed Modelling analyses were conducted using SPSS version 22. RESULTS: Communication support program recipients gave significantly more cues for discussion of prognosis, end-of-life care, future care options and general issues not targeted by the intervention during recorded consultations, but did not ask more questions about these issues or overall. Oncologists' question prompt list and question asking endorsement was inconsistent. Communication support program recipients' self-efficacy in knowing what questions to ask their doctor significantly improved at follow-up while control arm patients' self-efficacy declined. The communication support program did not impact patients' health-related quality-of-life or the likelihood that their health information or shared decision-making preferences would be met. Satisfaction with the communication support program was high. CONCLUSIONS: Given the importance of clarifying prognostic expectations and end-of-life care wishes in the advanced cancer context, the communication support program appears to be an effective and well-received solution to encourage early information seeking related to these issues though, its long-term impact remains unclear. The manualised nature of the intervention, designed with existing clinical staff in mind, may make it suited for implementation in a clinical setting, though additional work is needed to identify why question asking was unaffected and establish its impact later in the illness trajectory. Copyright Â
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Patients are often not given the information needed to understand their prognosis and make informed treatment choices, with many consequently experiencing less than optimal care and quality-of-life at end-of-life. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of a nurse-facilitated communication support program for patients with advanced, incurable cancer to assist them in discussing prognosis and end-of-life care. DESIGN: A parallel-group randomised controlled trial design was used. SETTINGS: This trial was conducted at six cancer treatment centres affiliated with major hospitals in Sydney, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 110 patients with advanced, incurable cancer participated. METHODS: The communication support program included guided exploration of a question prompt list, communication challenges, patient values and concerns and the value of discussing end-of-life care early, with oncologists cued to endorse question-asking and question prompt list use. Patients were randomised after baseline measure completion, a regular oncology consultation was audio-recorded and a follow-up questionnaire was completed one month later. Communication, health-related quality-of-life and satisfaction measures and a manualised consultation-coding scheme were used. Descriptive, Mixed Modelling and Generalised Linear Mixed Modelling analyses were conducted using SPSS version 22. RESULTS: Communication support program recipients gave significantly more cues for discussion of prognosis, end-of-life care, future care options and general issues not targeted by the intervention during recorded consultations, but did not ask more questions about these issues or overall. Oncologists' question prompt list and question asking endorsement was inconsistent. Communication support program recipients' self-efficacy in knowing what questions to ask their doctor significantly improved at follow-up while control arm patients' self-efficacy declined. The communication support program did not impact patients' health-related quality-of-life or the likelihood that their health information or shared decision-making preferences would be met. Satisfaction with the communication support program was high. CONCLUSIONS: Given the importance of clarifying prognostic expectations and end-of-life care wishes in the advanced cancer context, the communication support program appears to be an effective and well-received solution to encourage early information seeking related to these issues though, its long-term impact remains unclear. The manualised nature of the intervention, designed with existing clinical staff in mind, may make it suited for implementation in a clinical setting, though additional work is needed to identify why question asking was unaffected and establish its impact later in the illness trajectory. Copyright Â
Authors: Andrew S Epstein; Anjali V Desai; Camila Bernal; Danielle Romano; Peter J Wan; Molly Okpako; Kelly Anderson; Kimberly Chow; Dana Kramer; Claudia Calderon; Virginia V Klimek; Robin Rawlins-Duell; Diane L Reidy; Jessica I Goldberg; Elizabeth Cruz; Judith E Nelson Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2019-04-26 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Inge Henselmans; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Pomme van Maarschalkerweerd; Hanneke C J M de Haes; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Dirkje W Sommeijer; Petronella B Ottevanger; Helle-Brit Fiebrich; Serge Dohmen; Geert-Jan Creemers; Filip Y F L de Vos; Ellen M A Smets Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-11-26
Authors: Sukrit S Jain; Indra Neil Sarkar; Paul C Stey; Rajsavi S Anand; Dustin R Biron; Elizabeth S Chen Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: Andrea C Enzinger; Jennifer K Wind; Elizabeth Frank; Nadine J McCleary; Laura Porter; Heather Cushing; Caroline Abbott; Christine Cronin; Peter C Enzinger; Neal J Meropol; Deborah Schrag Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2017-03-22
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: Claudia Caroline Dobler; Manuel Sanchez; Michael R Gionfriddo; Neri A Alvarez-Villalobos; Naykky Singh Ospina; Gabriela Spencer-Bonilla; Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir; Raed Benkhadra; Patricia J Erwin; Colin P West; Juan P Brito; Mohammad Hassan Murad; Victor M Montori Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Spyros D Mentzelopoulos; Keith Couper; Patrick Van de Voorde; Patrick Druwé; Marieke Blom; Gavin D Perkins; Ileana Lulic; Jana Djakow; Violetta Raffay; Gisela Lilja; Leo Bossaert Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 0.826