Search

Objective: In addition to question prompts for information transfer, we also used prompts to facilitate the expression of emotions. Our aim was to investigate how a question prompt list (QPL) is accepted by patients and whether it enhances interactional empowerment of the patients in the consultation with the radio-oncological treatment team before the beginning of radiotherapy.Methodology: Adult cancer patients before the beginning of radiotherapy were randomly assigned to the intervention group (IG) or control group (CG). The patients in the IG received a QPL with predefined subsets and subject areas. After the physician's consultation, both groups completed a self-developed, content validated questionnaire on interactional empowerment. The IG evaluated the QPL using a self-developed instrument.Result: A total of 279 adult cancer patients participated in the study (IG n = 139/CG n = 140). The participants of the IG reported a significantly higher interactional empowerment compared with those of the CG (t(277) = - 2.71, p = .007, 95% CI [- 1.61, - 0.26], d = 0.29). 60.4% of the IG agreed "rather" or "very" that they used the QPL in consultation with the medical team.Conclusion: The QPL used in the consultation improved the self-assessed competence for interaction with the medical team and strengthened the interactional empowerment. The QPL was well accepted by the patients and is to be introduced into a routine as a practicable and simple instrument in the future. The support of patients in addressing concerns and fears is an important innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study aimed to explore the effect of physician endorsement of question-asking on advanced cancer patients' question-asking behaviour during consultations about palliative care and to explore other potential predictors of patient question-asking. Methods: Data were obtained from 80 control group patients from a randomised controlled trial of standard palliative care (PC) consultation (control group) versus provision of a question prompt list (QPL) before the consultation. Consecutive eligible patients with advanced cancer referred to 15 PC physicians from nine Australian PC centres participated. Baseline measures were obtained from patients; consultations were audiotaped, transcribed and analysed by blinded coders; and physicians estimated the patients' survival. Results: Endorsement of question-asking by the physician was not related to the number of patient questions. Patients with the highest anxiety levels asked 3.5 times as many questions as those with least anxiety (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 3.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.90-6.59, P = 0.001). After allowing for the effect of anxiety, patients with an estimated survival of >12 weeks asked 76% more questions (IRR = 1.76, 95% CI 1.03-3.00, P = 0.04), whereas age, sex, educational background, occupation, information and involvement preferences and presence of a caregiver were not related to patient question-asking behaviour. Conclusion: Physician endorsement of question-asking alone does not appear to increase questions by advanced cancer patients during consultations about PC. Additional resources such as QPLs may be needed to facilitate patient question-asking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine the feasibility and acceptability of routine provision of patient question prompt lists (QPLs) to promote patient participation and patient–clinician communication in medical consultations. Methods: Four cancer centres across NSW, Australia (two rural, two urban) were invited to participate, involving distribution of QPLs to patients seeing a medical or radiation oncologist, or palliative care clinician. Patients rated their satisfaction after their next consultation. Cancer specialists provided their views at the end of the study. Results: Sixty-four percent (389/606) of patients attending consultations received a QPL. Of patients offered a QPL (426), 91% accepted. Of 139 patients surveyed post-consultation, 89% reported reading the QPL and, of these, 44% referred to the QPL during the consultation at least once. All of 10 cancer specialists providing their views post-implementation reported that QPL implementation in routine practice was feasible and did not strain resources. Conclusions: Cancer patients and cancer specialists showed support for routine dissemination of the QPL. Practice implications: For successful implementation of evidence-based tools we recommend promotion by local clinical champions, negotiation with clinic staff about dissemination methods, raised patient awareness through on-site project facilitators, media, consumer and support groups, and availability of resources in hard copy and via online sources. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: Question Prompt Lists (QPLs) have demonstrated significant promise in facilitating communication in general, surgical and palliative oncology settings yet have not been tested in the oncology clinical trial setting. We aimed to develop a targeted QPL for Clinical Trials (QPL-CT). Methods: Breast, lung, and genitourinary cancer patients who either had (trial experienced) or had not (trial naive) participated in a clinical trial joined focus groups to help develop and explore the acceptability of a QPL-CT. Clinicians also participated in separated focus groups. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. We explored patients’ trial information needs and views about the utility of the QPL-CT. Results: Patients focused on four trial information needs: understanding foundational information, conflict of interest issues and financial implications of trial participation. Of note, experienced patients need to personalize foundational information. Conclusion: Patient information needs varied considerably and were influenced by trial experience. Patients valued the QPL-CT as an aid to gathering new trial information and ensuring that their information needs were met. Practice implications: Physicians need to carefully elicit patient information needs and tailor trial information to meet these needs. The QPL-CT, may be of great benefit during clinical trial discussions. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]