INTRODUCTION: Patients with incurable cancer have poor prognostic awareness. We present a detailed analysis of the dialogue between oncologists and patients in conversations with prognostic implications. METHODS: A total of 128 audio-recorded encounters from a large multisite trial were obtained, and 64 involved scan results. We used conversation analysis, a qualitative method for studying human interaction, to analyze typical patterns and conversational devices. RESULTS: Four components consistently occurred in sequential order: symptom-talk, scan-talk, treatment-talk, and logistic-talk. Six of the encounters (19%) were identified as good news, 15 (45%) as stable news, and 12 (36%) as bad news. The visit duration varied by the type of news: good, 15 minutes (07:00-29:00); stable, 17 minutes (07:00-41:00); and bad, 20 minutes (07:00-28:00). Conversational devices were common, appearing in half of recordings. Treatment-talk occupied 50% of bad-news encounters, 31% of good-news encounters, and 19% of stable-news encounters. Scan-talk occupied less than 10% of all conversations. There were only four instances of frank prognosis discussion. CONCLUSION: Oncologists and patients are complicit in constructing the typical encounter. Oncologists spend little time discussing scan results and the prognostic implications in favor of treatment-related talk. Conversational devices routinely help transition from scan-talk to detailed discussions about treatment options. We observed an opportunity to create prognosis-talk after scan-talk with a new conversational device, the question "Would you like to talk about what this means?" as the oncologist seeks permission to disclose prognostic information while ceding control to the patient.
INTRODUCTION:Patients with incurable cancer have poor prognostic awareness. We present a detailed analysis of the dialogue between oncologists and patients in conversations with prognostic implications. METHODS: A total of 128 audio-recorded encounters from a large multisite trial were obtained, and 64 involved scan results. We used conversation analysis, a qualitative method for studying human interaction, to analyze typical patterns and conversational devices. RESULTS: Four components consistently occurred in sequential order: symptom-talk, scan-talk, treatment-talk, and logistic-talk. Six of the encounters (19%) were identified as good news, 15 (45%) as stable news, and 12 (36%) as bad news. The visit duration varied by the type of news: good, 15 minutes (07:00-29:00); stable, 17 minutes (07:00-41:00); and bad, 20 minutes (07:00-28:00). Conversational devices were common, appearing in half of recordings. Treatment-talk occupied 50% of bad-news encounters, 31% of good-news encounters, and 19% of stable-news encounters. Scan-talk occupied less than 10% of all conversations. There were only four instances of frank prognosis discussion. CONCLUSION: Oncologists and patients are complicit in constructing the typical encounter. Oncologists spend little time discussing scan results and the prognostic implications in favor of treatment-related talk. Conversational devices routinely help transition from scan-talk to detailed discussions about treatment options. We observed an opportunity to create prognosis-talk after scan-talk with a new conversational device, the question "Would you like to talk about what this means?" as the oncologist seeks permission to disclose prognostic information while ceding control to the patient.
Authors: Gabrielle B Rocque; Toby C Campbell; Sara K Johnson; Jonathan King; Meghan R Zander; Renae M Quale; Jens C Eickhoff; James F Cleary Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Jane C Weeks; Paul J Catalano; Angel Cronin; Matthew D Finkelman; Jennifer W Mack; Nancy L Keating; Deborah Schrag Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Catherine Saiki; Betty Ferrell; Denise Longo-Schoeberlein; Vincent Chung; Thomas J Smith Journal: J Community Support Oncol Date: 2017 Jul-Aug
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
Authors: Janine Westendorp; Andrea W M Evers; Jacqueline M L Stouthard; Janneke Budding; Elsken van der Wall; Nicole M F Plum; Mirjam Velting; Anneke L Francke; Sandra van Dulmen; Tim C Olde Hartman; Liesbeth M Van Vliet Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Andrew S Epstein; Sophia E Kakarala; Valerie F Reyna; Ashish Saxena; Paul K Maciejewski; Manish A Shah; Holly G Prigerson Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2020-11-27 Impact factor: 5.576