Danique W Bos-van den Hoek1,2,3, Leonie N C Visser1,2,4, Richard F Brown5, Ellen M A Smets1,2,3, Inge Henselmans1,2,3. 1. Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Medical Psychology. 2. Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute. 3. Cancer Center Amsterdam. 4. Alzheimer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Neurology, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 5. Department of Health Behavior and Policy, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Effective communication in cancer care requires complex communication skills of healthcare professionals (HCPs), which can be advanced by communication skills training (CST). The number of empirical studies on CST has grown steadily over the last decade. However, controversies on CST abound. The aim of this review of reviews is to summarize evidence for the effectiveness of CST in oncology as well as for effective CST features (intensity, format and content) and to synthesize the current opinion on CST. RECENT FINDINGS: The evidence synthesized from multiple reviews supported the effect of CST on HCPs' communication skills. Yet, the certainty of evidence was limited as studies were diverse and effects heterogeneous. Furthermore, limited evidence was found for effective CST intensity, format and content. Authors of the reviews advocated further high-quality research with robust outcome measurement to establish the most essential features of CST and recommended implementation of CST in the standard training of HCPs with continuous supervision. SUMMARY: CST can probably improve some aspects of HCPs' communication skills. Despite the uncertain evidence, implementation of CST into clinical practice is widely advocated and specific recommendations regarding intensity and format are provided. Evidence to justify and substantiate implementation efforts is needed.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Effective communication in cancer care requires complex communication skills of healthcare professionals (HCPs), which can be advanced by communication skills training (CST). The number of empirical studies on CST has grown steadily over the last decade. However, controversies on CST abound. The aim of this review of reviews is to summarize evidence for the effectiveness of CST in oncology as well as for effective CST features (intensity, format and content) and to synthesize the current opinion on CST. RECENT FINDINGS: The evidence synthesized from multiple reviews supported the effect of CST on HCPs' communication skills. Yet, the certainty of evidence was limited as studies were diverse and effects heterogeneous. Furthermore, limited evidence was found for effective CST intensity, format and content. Authors of the reviews advocated further high-quality research with robust outcome measurement to establish the most essential features of CST and recommended implementation of CST in the standard training of HCPs with continuous supervision. SUMMARY: CST can probably improve some aspects of HCPs' communication skills. Despite the uncertain evidence, implementation of CST into clinical practice is widely advocated and specific recommendations regarding intensity and format are provided. Evidence to justify and substantiate implementation efforts is needed.
Authors: Sebastiaan M Stuij; Constance H C Drossaert; Nanon H M Labrie; Robert L Hulsman; Marie José Kersten; Sandra van Dulmen; Ellen M A Smets Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 2.463
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: Nicole Ernstmann; Hannah Nakata; Lena Meurer; Johanna Weiß; Franziska Geiser; Frank Vitinius; Andrea Petermann-Meyer; Markus Burgmer; Bernd Sonntag; Martin Teufel; André Karger Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-10-09 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Danique W Bos-van den Hoek; Maureen Thodé; Irene P Jongerden; Hanneke W M Van Laarhoven; Ellen M A Smets; Dorien Tange; Inge Henselmans; H Roeline Pasman Journal: J Adv Nurs Date: 2020-10-20 Impact factor: 3.057