Leonie N C Visser1, Marieke S Tollenaar2, Lorenz J P van Doornen3, Hanneke C J M de Haes4, Ellen M A Smets4. 1. Department of Medical Psychology/Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: N.C.Visser@amc.uva.nl. 2. Department of Clinical Psychology, Leiden University, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Medical Psychology/Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The impact of two types of oncologists' emotion-oriented communication on participants' recall of medical information was investigated, and the potential mediation by a reduction in emotional stress. Additionally, moderation effects by personal characteristics were explored. METHODS: An oncologist's communication in response to a patient's emotional expressions was manipulated during a videotaped, scripted bad-news consultation. Three conditions were created: 1) standard communication, 2) emotion-oriented silence, and 3) emotion-oriented speech. Participants (N = 217) were randomly allocated to one of the three conditions. Measurements included information recall (free recall and recognition), emotional stress (self-reported and physiological), and personal characteristics. RESULTS:Emotion-oriented silence (p = .002) and speech (p = .019) enhanced information recognition compared to standard communication. No differences in free recall were found. Emotional stress did not mediate these relations. Poorer functional health literacy predicted poorer recognition, but this was counteracted by emotion-oriented communication. CONCLUSIONS: By means of acknowledging, exploring, empathic and supportive statements, and attentive silence, the oncologist's communication resulted in better information recognition. How oncologists' communication impacts patients' information recall warrants further investigation, as this could not be explained by reducing emotional stress. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These insights will help educators to validate the relevance of emotion-oriented strategies, and encourage oncologists to adopt them.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The impact of two types of oncologists' emotion-oriented communication on participants' recall of medical information was investigated, and the potential mediation by a reduction in emotional stress. Additionally, moderation effects by personal characteristics were explored. METHODS: An oncologist's communication in response to a patient's emotional expressions was manipulated during a videotaped, scripted bad-news consultation. Three conditions were created: 1) standard communication, 2) emotion-oriented silence, and 3) emotion-oriented speech. Participants (N = 217) were randomly allocated to one of the three conditions. Measurements included information recall (free recall and recognition), emotional stress (self-reported and physiological), and personal characteristics. RESULTS: Emotion-oriented silence (p = .002) and speech (p = .019) enhanced information recognition compared to standard communication. No differences in free recall were found. Emotional stress did not mediate these relations. Poorer functional health literacy predicted poorer recognition, but this was counteracted by emotion-oriented communication. CONCLUSIONS: By means of acknowledging, exploring, empathic and supportive statements, and attentive silence, the oncologist's communication resulted in better information recognition. How oncologists' communication impacts patients' information recall warrants further investigation, as this could not be explained by reducing emotional stress. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These insights will help educators to validate the relevance of emotion-oriented strategies, and encourage oncologists to adopt them.
Authors: Sarah L Rockwell; Cameka L Woods; Monica E Lemmon; Justin N Baker; Jennifer W Mack; Karen L Andes; Erica C Kaye Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 5.738
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: Daniel Adrian Lungu; Jo Røislien; Siri Wiig; Marie Therese Shortt; Francesca Ferrè; Siv Hilde Berg; Henriette Thune; Kolbjørn Kallesten Brønnick Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-12-30 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: M C Meijers; J Stouthard; A W M Evers; E Das; H J Drooger; S J A J Jansen; A L Francke; N Plum; E van der Wall; Y Nestoriuc; E Dusseldorp; L M van Vliet Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-09-27 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Hanne C Lie; Lene K Juvet; Richard L Street; Pål Gulbrandsen; Anneli V Mellblom; Espen Andreas Brembo; Hilde Eide; Lena Heyn; Kristina H Saltveit; Hilde Strømme; Vibeke Sundling; Eva Turk; Julia Menichetti Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-08-05 Impact factor: 5.128