Timothy J Williamson1, Jamie S Ostroff2, Chloé M Martin2, Smita C Banerjee2, Carma L Bylund3, Heidi A Hamann4, Megan Johnson Shen5. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: williat5@mskcc.org. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 4. Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. 5. Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Empathic communication in clinical consultations is mutually constructed, with patients first presenting empathic opportunities (statements communicating emotions, challenges, or progress) to which clinicians can respond. We hypothesized that lung cancer patients who did not present empathic opportunities during routine consultations would report higher stigma, anxiety, and depressive symptoms than patients who presented at least one. METHODS: Audio-recorded consultations between lung cancer patients (N = 56) and clinicians were analyzed to identify empathic opportunities. Participants completed questionnaires measuring sociodemographic and psychosocial characteristics. RESULTS: Twenty-one consultations (38 %) did not contain empathic opportunities. Unexpectedly, there was a significant interaction between presenting empathic opportunities and patients' race on disclosure-related stigma (i.e., discomfort discussing one's cancer; F = 4.49, p = .041) and anxiety (F = 8.03, p = .007). Among racial minority patients (self-identifying as Black/African-American, Asian/Pacific Islander, or other race), those who did not present empathic opportunities reported higher stigma than those who presented at least one (t=-5.47, p = .038), but this difference was not observed among white patients (t = 0.38, p = .789). Additional statistically significant findings emerged for anxiety. CONCLUSION: Disclosure-related stigma and anxiety may explain why some patients present empathic opportunities whereas others do not. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians should intentionally elicit empathic opportunities and encourage open communication with patients (particularly from diverse racial backgrounds).
OBJECTIVE: Empathic communication in clinical consultations is mutually constructed, with patients first presenting empathic opportunities (statements communicating emotions, challenges, or progress) to which clinicians can respond. We hypothesized that lung cancer patients who did not present empathic opportunities during routine consultations would report higher stigma, anxiety, and depressive symptoms than patients who presented at least one. METHODS: Audio-recorded consultations between lung cancer patients (N = 56) and clinicians were analyzed to identify empathic opportunities. Participants completed questionnaires measuring sociodemographic and psychosocial characteristics. RESULTS: Twenty-one consultations (38 %) did not contain empathic opportunities. Unexpectedly, there was a significant interaction between presenting empathic opportunities and patients' race on disclosure-related stigma (i.e., discomfort discussing one's cancer; F = 4.49, p = .041) and anxiety (F = 8.03, p = .007). Among racial minority patients (self-identifying as Black/African-American, Asian/Pacific Islander, or other race), those who did not present empathic opportunities reported higher stigma than those who presented at least one (t=-5.47, p = .038), but this difference was not observed among white patients (t = 0.38, p = .789). Additional statistically significant findings emerged for anxiety. CONCLUSION: Disclosure-related stigma and anxiety may explain why some patients present empathic opportunities whereas others do not. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians should intentionally elicit empathic opportunities and encourage open communication with patients (particularly from diverse racial backgrounds).
Authors: Kathleen A Bonvicini; Michael J Perlin; Carma L Bylund; Gregory Carroll; Ruby A Rouse; Michael G Goldstein Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2008-12-10
Authors: Timothy J Williamson; Alyssa K Choi; Julie C Kim; Edward B Garon; Jenessa R Shapiro; Michael R Irwin; Jonathan W Goldman; Krikor Bornyazan; James M Carroll; Annette L Stanton Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Lixin Song; Mark A Weaver; Ronald C Chen; Jeannette T Bensen; Elizabeth Fontham; James L Mohler; Merle Mishel; Paul A Godley; Betsy Sleath Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2014-09-04
Authors: Janet M Turan; Melissa A Elafros; Carmen H Logie; Swagata Banik; Bulent Turan; Kaylee B Crockett; Bernice Pescosolido; Sarah M Murray Journal: BMC Med Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Timothy J Williamson; Edward B Garon; Jenessa R Shapiro; Denise A Chavira; Jonathan W Goldman; Annette L Stanton Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 5.556