Search

Objectives: We have developed two Dutch questionnaires to assess the shared decision-making (SDM) process in oncology; the iSHAREpatient and iSHAREphysician. In this study, we aimed to determine: scores, construct validity, test-retest agreement (iSHAREpatient), and inter-rater (iSHAREpatient-iSHAREphysician) agreement.Methods: Physicians from seven Dutch hospitals recruited cancer patients, and completed the iSHAREphysician and SDM-Questionnaire-physician version. Their patients completed the: iSHAREpatient, nine-item SDM-Questionnaire, Decisional Conflict Scale, Combined Outcome Measure for Risk communication And treatment Decision-making Effectiveness, and five-item Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions. We formulated, respectively, one (iSHAREphysician) and 10 (iSHAREpatient) a priori hypotheses regarding correlations between the iSHARE questionnaires and questionnaires assessing related constructs. To assess test-retest agreement patients completed the iSHAREpatient again 1-2 weeks later.Results: In total, 151 treatment decision-making processes with unique patients were rated. Dimension and total iSHARE scores were high both in patients and physicians. The hypothesis on the iSHAREphysician and 9/10 hypotheses on the iSHAREpatient were confirmed. Test-retest and inter-rater agreement were >.60 for most items.Conclusions: The iSHARE questionnaires show high scores, have good construct validity, substantial test-retest agreement, and moderate inter-rater agreement.Practice implications: Results from the iSHARE questionnaires can inform both physician- and patient-directed efforts to improve SDM in clinical practice. (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. CC_BY_4.0

Little is known about the relation between communication during cancer genetic counseling and outcome. We assessed associations between counselor-counselee communication and counselee satisfaction, cognitions, anxiety, and fulfillment of major needs, corrected for pre-visit levels as appropriate. In total 171 consecutive new counselees, mainly referred for breast or colon cancer, received pre- and post-visit questionnaires assessing needs/fulfillment, knowledge, perceived control (PPC), anxiety (STAI), and satisfaction. Initial visits were videotaped and counselor eye gaze was recorded. Verbal communication was rated by Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS). Asking more medical questions was associated with lower satisfaction levels. Receiving more medical information was related to higher correct knowledge scores, higher reported fulfillment of some needs, and unrelated to perceptions of control. Receiving more psychosocial information and longer counselor eye gaze were related to higher anxiety scores. Longer visits were related to higher correct knowledge scores. Providing medical information appears the most powerful communication aspect to increase counselee satisfaction and address needs. More research is needed on how to address adequately (emotional) needs and increase feelings of control.

Objectives: To assess the influence of a 1-day individual video-feedback training for cancer genetic counselors on the interaction during initial visits. Feedback was intended to help counselors make counselees’ needs more explicit and increase counselors’ sensitivity to these. Methods: In total 158 counselees, mainly referred for breast or colon cancer and visiting 1 of 10 counselors, received a pre- and post-visit questionnaire assessing needs (fulfillment). Visits were videotaped, counselor eye gaze was assessed, and verbal communication was analyzed by Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) adapted to the genetic setting. Halfway the study, five counselors were trained. Results: Trained counselors provided more psychosocial information, and with trained counselors emotional consequences of DNA-testing was more often discussed. Counselees seen by a trained counselor considered their need for explanations on (emotional) consequences of counseling as better fulfilled. Unexpectedly, counselees’ contribution to the interaction was smaller with trained counselors. Conclusion: Feedback appeared to result in greater emphasis on psychosocial issues, without lengthening the visit. However, counselors did not become more verbally supportive in other ways than by providing information. Practice implications: A 1 day individual training appears effective to some extend; increased opportunities for watching and practicing behavioral alternatives and arranging consolidating sessions may improve training results.

This study sought to describe counsellor–counselee interaction during initial cancer genetic counselling consultations and to examine whether the communication reflects counselees’ previsit needs. A total of 130 consecutive counselees, referred mainly for breast or colon cancer, completed a questionnaire before their first appointment at a genetic clinic. Their visit was videotaped. Counselee and counsellor verbal communications were analysed and initiative to discuss 11 genetics-specific conversational topics was assessed. The content of the visit appeared relatively standard. Overall, counselees had a stronger psychosocial focus than counsellors. Counsellors directed the communication more and initiated the discussion of most of the topics assessed. Counselees did not appear to communicate readily in a manner that reflected their previsit needs. Counsellors provided more psychosocial information to counselees in higher need for emotional support, yet did not enquire more about counselees’ specific concerns. New counselees may be helped by receiving more information on the counselling procedure prior to their visit, and may be advised to prepare the visit more thoroughly so as to help them verbalise more their queries during the visit.

In this thesis, we aimed to gain insight in the process of shared decision making in the setting of adjuvant cancer treatments. We observed clinician-patient consultations in daily clinical practice, and developed a core list of information that should be provided in the pre-treatment consultation. We showed that the three key steps of shared decision making are followed to a limited extent. Choice awareness is rarely created in pre-treatment consultations on (neo-)adjuvant cancer treatment, and the option of foregoing these treatments is omitted consistently (Step 1). There is large variation in information provision on possible treatment strategies. Patients tend to overestimate the beneficial effect of treatment, and to underestimate the probability of harms (Step 2). Finally, patients' values and treatment preferences are elicited in only a minority of consultations. If patients voice their values or treatment preferences, or if the oncologist indicates to consider these, patients perceive a significant more active role in the decision making process (Step 3). Our results show that opportunities are missed to engage patients in a process of shared decision making. Small changes in doctor-patient communication can facilitate patients' involvement in deciding about treatment.