Communicating treatment risks and benefits to cancer patients: a systematic review of communication methods
-
Published:2020-04-24
Issue:7
Volume:29
Page:1747-1766
-
ISSN:0962-9343
-
Container-title:Quality of Life Research
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Qual Life Res
Author:
van de Water L. F., van Kleef J. J., Dijksterhuis W. P. M., Henselmans I., van den Boorn H. G., Vaarzon Morel N. M., Schut K. F., Daams J. G., Smets E. M. A., van Laarhoven H. W. M.ORCID
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
Cancer patients are increasingly involved in decision-making processes. Hence, clinicians need to inform patients about the risks and benefits of different treatment options in order for patients to make well informed decisions. The aim of this review is to determine the effects of methods of communicating prognostic information about (1) disease progression (survival, progression, recurrence and remission), (2) side effects and complications and (3) health-related quality of life (HRQL) on cognitive, affective and behavioral outcomes in cancer patients.
Methods
A literature search was performed to select articles that were published up to November 2019 and that examined verbal and/or visual risk communication interventions in an oncological clinical setting.
Results
The search yielded 14,875 studies; 28 studies were ultimately included. For disease progression information, we found that framing affects treatment choice. Furthermore, limiting the amount of progression information in a graphical display could benefit patients’ understanding of risks and benefits. For prognostic information about side effects and complications, precise and defined risk information was better understood than information presented in words. When displaying HRQL data, no consensus was found on which graph type to use.
Conclusion
Great heterogeneity in the results and methodology and in the compared communication formats precluded us from drawing any further conclusions. Practical implications for clinicians are to consider the effects that different types of framing might have on the patient and to not rely exclusively on words to describe risks, but rather include at least some form of numbers or visualization.
Funder
KWF Kankerbestrijding
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Reference46 articles.
1. Stiggelbout, A. M., Pieterse, A. H., & De Haes, J. (2015). Shared decision making: Concepts, evidence, and practice. Patient Education and Counseling,98(10), 1172–1179. 2. Stiggelbout, A. M., Van der Weijden, T., De Wit, M. P., Frosch, D., Légaré, F., Montori, V. M., et al. (2012). Shared decision making: Really putting patients at the centre of healthcare. BMJ,344, e256. 3. Elwyn, G., Laitner, S., Coulter, A., Walker, E., Watson, P., & Thomson, R. J. B. (2010). Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ,341, c5146. 4. Sepucha, K. R., Fowler, F. J., Jr., & Mulley, A. G., Jr. (2004). Policy support for patient-centered care: The need for measurable improvements in decision quality: Documenting gaps in patients' knowledge could stimulate rapid change, moving decisions and care closer to a patient-centered ideal. Health Affairs,23(Suppl2), 62. 5. Lobb, E. A., Butow, P. N., Kenny, D. T., & Tattersall, M. H. (1999). Communicating prognosis in early breast cancer: Do women understand the language used? Medical Journal of Australia,171(6), 290–294.
Cited by
32 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|