Bryan A Sisk1, Tammy I Kang2,3, Jennifer W Mack4,5. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri; siskb@wustl.edu. 2. Section of Pediatric Palliative Care, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Texas. 3. Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, Baylor University, Houston, Texas. 4. Division of Population Sciences, Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts; and. 5. Division of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine which prognostic information sources parents find informative and which are associated with better parental understanding of prognosis. METHODS: Prospective, questionnaire-based cohort study of parents and physicians of children with cancer at 2 academic pediatric hospitals. We asked parents how they learned about prognoses and evaluated relationships between information sources and prognostic understanding, defined as accuracy versus optimism. We excluded parents with pessimistic estimates and whose children had such good prognoses that optimism relative to the physician was impossible. Analytic cohort of 256 parent-physician pairs. RESULTS: Most parents considered explicit sources (conversations with oncologists at diagnosis, day-to-day conversations with oncologists, and conversations with nurses) "very" or "extremely" informative (73%-85%). Implicit sources (parent's sense of how child was doing or how oncologist seemed to feel child was doing) were similarly informative (84%-87%). Twenty-seven percent (70/253) of parents reported prognostic estimates matching physicians' estimates. Parents who valued implicit information had lower prognostic accuracy (odds ratio [OR] 0.50; 95% confidence interval 0.29-0.88), especially those who relied on a "general sense of how my child's oncologist seems to feel my child is doing" (OR 0.47; 0.22-0.99). Parents were more likely to use implicit sources if they reported receiving high-quality prognostic information (OR 3.02; 1.41-6.43), trusted the physician (OR 2.01; 1.01-3.98), and reported high-quality physician communication (OR 1.81; 1.00-3.27). CONCLUSIONS: Reliance on implicit sources was associated with overly-optimistic prognostic estimates. Parents who endorsed strong, trusting relationships with physicians were not protected against misinformation.
OBJECTIVES: To determine which prognostic information sources parents find informative and which are associated with better parental understanding of prognosis. METHODS: Prospective, questionnaire-based cohort study of parents and physicians of children with cancer at 2 academic pediatric hospitals. We asked parents how they learned about prognoses and evaluated relationships between information sources and prognostic understanding, defined as accuracy versus optimism. We excluded parents with pessimistic estimates and whose children had such good prognoses that optimism relative to the physician was impossible. Analytic cohort of 256 parent-physician pairs. RESULTS: Most parents considered explicit sources (conversations with oncologists at diagnosis, day-to-day conversations with oncologists, and conversations with nurses) "very" or "extremely" informative (73%-85%). Implicit sources (parent's sense of how child was doing or how oncologist seemed to feel child was doing) were similarly informative (84%-87%). Twenty-seven percent (70/253) of parents reported prognostic estimates matching physicians' estimates. Parents who valued implicit information had lower prognostic accuracy (odds ratio [OR] 0.50; 95% confidence interval 0.29-0.88), especially those who relied on a "general sense of how my child's oncologist seems to feel my child is doing" (OR 0.47; 0.22-0.99). Parents were more likely to use implicit sources if they reported receiving high-quality prognostic information (OR 3.02; 1.41-6.43), trusted the physician (OR 2.01; 1.01-3.98), and reported high-quality physician communication (OR 1.81; 1.00-3.27). CONCLUSIONS: Reliance on implicit sources was associated with overly-optimistic prognostic estimates. Parents who endorsed strong, trusting relationships with physicians were not protected against misinformation.
Authors: Bryan A Sisk; Kieandra Harvey; Annie B Friedrich; Alison L Antes; Lauren H Yaeger; Jennifer W Mack; James M DuBois Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2021-10-18 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Erica C Kaye; Sarah Rockwell; Cameka Woods; Monica E Lemmon; Karen Andes; Justin N Baker; Jennifer W Mack Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-08-02
Authors: Bryan A Sisk; Megan Keenan; Melody S Goodman; Argentina E Servin; Lauren H Yaeger; Jennifer W Mack; James M DuBois Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2021-12-30
Authors: Mary Katherine Miller; Elizabeth D Blume; Chase Samsel; Eleni Elia; David W Brown; Emily Morell Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 1.838
Authors: Emily Morell; Mary Katherine Miller; Minmin Lu; Kevin G Friedman; Roger E Breitbart; Jeffrey R Reichman; Julie McDermott; Lynn A Sleeper; Elizabeth D Blume Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-01-14 Impact factor: 5.501