Physician communication styles in initial consultations for hematological cancer

被引:25
作者
Chhabra, Karan R. [1 ]
Pollak, Kathryn I. [2 ,3 ]
Lee, Stephanie J. [4 ]
Back, Anthony L. [4 ]
Goldman, Roberta E. [5 ,6 ]
Tulsky, James A. [2 ,7 ,8 ]
机构
[1] Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Med Sch, New Brunswick, NJ USA
[2] Duke Canc Inst, Canc Prevent Detect & Control Res Program, Durham, NC USA
[3] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Community & Family Med, Durham, NC 27706 USA
[4] Univ Washington, Fred Hutchinson Canc Res Ctr, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[5] Brown Univ, Alpert Med Sch, Dept Family Med, Providence, RI 02912 USA
[6] Harvard Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Social & Behav Sci, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[7] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Med, Duke Palliat Care, Durham, NC 27706 USA
[8] Durham VA Med Ctr, Hlth Serv Res & Dev Serv, Durham, NC USA
关键词
US; Physician-patient communication; Oncology consultations; Information delivery; Patient participation; Shared decision-making; Physician-patient relationships; Second opinions; SHARED DECISION-MAKING; HEALTH-CARE; RECOMMENDATIONS; INFORMATION; DOCTOR; CHOICE;
D O I
10.1016/j.pec.2013.08.023
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Objective: To characterize practices in subspecialist physicians' communication styles, and their potential effects on shared decision-making, in second-opinion consultations. Methods: Theme-oriented discourse analysis of 20 second-opinion consultations with subspecialist hematologist-oncologists. Results: Physicians frequently "broadcasted" information about the disease, treatment options, relevant research, and prognostic information in extended, often-uninterrupted monologs. Their communicative styles had one of two implications: conveying options without offering specific recommendations, or recommending one without incorporating patients' goals and values into the decision. Some physicians, however, used techniques that encouraged patient participation. Conclusions: Broadcasting may be a suboptimal method of conveying complex treatment information in order to support shared decision-making. Interventions could teach techniques that encourage patient participation. Practice implications: Techniques such as open-ended questions, affirmations of patients' expressions, and pauses to check for patient understanding can mitigate the effects of broadcasting and could be used to promote shared decision-making in information-dense subspecialist consultations. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:573 / 578
页数:6
相关论文
共 22 条
[1]   The doctor and the patient-How is a clinical encounter perceived? [J].
Adams, Robert ;
Price, Kay ;
Tucker, Graeme ;
Anh-Minh Nguyen ;
Wilson, David .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2012, 86 (01) :127-133
[2]   Information giving and receiving in hematological malignancy consultations [J].
Alexander, Stewart C. ;
Sullivan, Amy M. ;
Back, Anthony L. ;
Tulsky, James A. ;
Goldman, Roberta E. ;
Block, Susan D. ;
Stewart, Susan K. ;
Wilson-Genderson, Maureen ;
Lee, Stephanie J. .
PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY, 2012, 21 (03) :297-306
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2009, SHARED DECISION MAKI
[4]  
[Anonymous], 1998, CLAIMING POWER DOCTO
[5]  
Cameron D., 2001, Working with spoken discourse
[6]   Medical recommendations as joint social practice [J].
Costello, BA ;
Roberts, F .
HEALTH COMMUNICATION, 2001, 13 (03) :241-260
[7]  
Elwyn G, 2000, BRIT J GEN PRACT, V50, P892
[8]   Authoritarian Physicians And Patients' Fear Of Being Labeled 'Difficult' Among Key Obstacles To Shared Decision Making [J].
Frosch, Dominick L. ;
May, Suepattra G. ;
Rendle, Katharine A. S. ;
Tietbohl, Caroline ;
Elwyn, Glyn .
HEALTH AFFAIRS, 2012, 31 (05) :1030-1038
[9]   Information giving and decision-making in patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review [J].
Gaston, CM ;
Mitchell, G .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2005, 61 (10) :2252-2264
[10]   Patients' reflections on communication in the second-opinion hematology-oncology consultation [J].
Goldman, Roberta E. ;
Sullivan, Amy ;
Back, Anthony L. ;
Alexander, Stewart C. ;
Matsuyama, Robin K. ;
Lee, Stephanie J. .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2009, 76 (01) :44-50