Search

Objective: We examined whether conversations involving Black or Latino patients with advanced cancer differ in the presence or characteristics of prognosis communication., Methods: We audio-recorded initial consultations between 54 palliative care clinicians and 231 hospitalized people with advanced cancer. We coded for the presence and characteristics of prognosis communication. We examined whether the presence or characteristics of prognosis communication differed by patients' self-reported race/ethnicity., Results: In 231 consultations, 75.7% contained prognosis communication. Prognosis communication was less than half as likely to occur during conversations with Black or Latino patients (N = 48) compared to others. Among consultations in which prognosis was addressed, those involving Black or Latino patients were more than 8 times less likely to contain optimistically cued prognoses compared to others., Conclusion: Prognosis communication occurred less frequently for Black and Latino patients and included fewer optimistic cues than conversations with other patients. More work is needed to better understand these observed patterns of prognosis communication that vary by race and ethnicity., Practice Implications: Growing evidence supports prognosis communication being important for end-of-life decision-making and disproportionately rare among non-White populations. Therefore, our findings identify a potentially salient target for clinical interventions that are focused on ameliorating disparities in end-of-life care., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patient gender and race, and physician-patient communication are associated with clinical outcomes. Aim: To understand the role of these factors in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) during primary care visits as measured by appropriate outcome. Materials and Methods: Caucasian and African American unannounced standardized patients (USPs) of both genders presented to 207 primary care physicians (PCPs) from community and academic practices in Ohio and Virginia as new patients with CRC symptoms. PCPs were blinded to the diagnosis. Physician subjects consented to audiotaping the encounter. Medical records were obtained. Communication elements were coded by trained observers and appropriate visit outcomes were coded from the medical record and audiofiles, defined as (1) recommendation for colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy/fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or (2) referral to gastroenterologist. Results: A total of 141 of 367 USP visits (38%) resulted in appropriate clinical outcomes. Patient race was not associated with outcome, but being a male USP was (χ 2  = 4.12, p  = 0.04). Relational communication was represented as a latent variable with seven indicators (alpha = 0.84) and was independently associated with outcome (beta = 0.15; p  = 0.025). After controlling for clustered sampling, relational communication, and race, structural equational modeling indicated that female USPs were less likely to have an appropriate clinical visit outcome (beta = -0.13; p  = 0.033). Conclusions: Using a novel and innovative methodology capturing PCP behaviors during real-time clinician-patient interaction, appropriate clinical outcome was independently associated with being male and PCP relational communication factors such as encouraging patient communication, being engaged and expressive in the physician-patient conversation, and appearing friendly and sincere. There are persistent biases in the delivery of health care to female patients and further research into targeted communication skills programs may be warranted.

Objective: To identify predictors of participation of patients with advanced cancer in clinical encounters with oncologists and to assess the impact of patient and caregiver participation on perceptions of physician support., Methods: This is a secondary data analysis from the Values and Options in Cancer Care study, a cluster randomized clinical trial of a patient-centered communication intervention. Patients and caregivers completed pre-visit and post-visit health and communication measures. Audio recorded patient-caregiver (when present)-physician encounters were coded for active patient/caregiver participation behaviors (eg, question asking, expressing concern) and for physicians' facilitative communication (eg, partnership-building, support). Mixed linear regression models were used to identify patient, physician, and situational factors predicting patient and patient plus caregiver communication behaviors and post-visit outcomes., Results: Physician partnership building predicted greater expressions of concern and more assertive responses from patients and patient-caregiver pairs. Patients' perceptions of greater connectedness with their physician predicted fewer patient expressions of concern. Patient perceptions of physician respect for their autonomy were lower among patients accompanied by caregivers. Caregiver perceptions of physician respect for patient autonomy decreased with increasing patient age and varied by site., Conclusions: In advanced cancer care, patient and caregiver communication is affected by ecological factors within their consultations. Physicians can support greater patient participation in clinical encounters through facilitative communication such as partnership-building and supportive talk. The presence of a caregiver complicates this environment, but partnership building techniques may help promote patient and caregiver participation during these visits., (Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Purpose Some research has suggested that discussion of prognosis can disrupt the patient-physician relationship. This study assessed whether physician discussion of prognosis is associated with detrimental changes in measures of the strength of the patient-physician relationship. Methods This was a longitudinal cohort study of 265 adult patients with advanced cancer who visited 38 oncologists within community- and hospital-based cancer clinics in Western New York and Northern California. Prognostic discussion was assessed by coding transcribed audio-recorded visits using the Prognostic and Treatment Choices (PTCC) scale and by patient survey at 3 months after the clinic visit. Changes in the strength of the patient-physician relationship were computed as differences in patient responses to The Human Connection and the Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions scales from baseline to 2 to 7 days and 3 months after the clinic visit. Results Prognostic discussion was not associated with a temporal decline in either measure. Indeed, a one-unit increase in PTCC during the audio-recorded visit was associated with improvement in The Human Connection scale at 2 to 7 days after the visit (parameter estimate, 0.10; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.23) and 3 months after the visit (parameter estimate, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.35) relative to baseline. Standardized effect sizes (SES) associated with an increase of two standard deviations in the PTCC at each time point were consistent with small beneficial effects (SES, 0.14 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.29] at 2 to 7 days; SES, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.02 to 0.45] at 3 months), and lower bounds of CIs indicated that substantial detrimental effects of prognostic discussion were unlikely. Conclusion Prognostic discussion is not intrinsically harmful to the patient-physician relationship and may even strengthen the therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists.

Purpose To build on results of a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a combined patient-oncologist intervention to improve communication in advanced cancer, we conducted a post hoc analysis of the patient intervention component, a previsit patient coaching session that used a question prompt list (QPL). We hypothesized that intervention-group participants would bring up more QPL-related topics, particularly prognosis-related topics, during the subsequent oncologist visit. Patients and Methods This cluster RCT with 170 patients who had advanced nonhematologic cancer (and their caregivers) recruited from practices of 24 participating oncologists in western New York. Intervention-group oncologists (n = 12) received individualized communication training; up to 10 of their patients (n = 84) received a previsit individualized communication coaching session that incorporated a QPL. Control-group oncologists (n = 12) and patients (n = 86) received no interventions. Topics of interest identified by patients during the coaching session were summarized from coaching notes; one office visit after the coaching session was audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by using linear regression modeling for group differences. Results Compared with controls, more than twice as many intervention-group participants brought up QPL-related topics during their office visits (70.2% v 32.6%; P < .001). Patients in the intervention group were nearly three times more likely to ask about prognosis (16.7% v 5.8%; P =.03). Of 262 topics of interest identified during coaching, 158 (60.3%) were QPL related; 20 (12.7%) addressed prognosis. Overall, patients in the intervention group brought up 82.4% of topics of interest during the office visit. Conclusion A combined coaching and QPL intervention was effective to help patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers identify and bring up topics of concern, including prognosis, during their subsequent oncologist visits. Considering that most patients are misinformed about prognosis, more intensive steps are needed to better promote such discussions.

Importance: Observational studies demonstrate links between patient-centered communication, quality of life (QOL), and aggressive treatments in advanced cancer, yet few randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of communication interventions have been reported., Objective: To determine whether a combined intervention involving oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and caregivers would promote patient-centered communication, and to estimate intervention effects on shared understanding, patient-physician relationships, QOL, and aggressive treatments in the last 30 days of life., Design, Setting, and Participants: Cluster RCT at community- and hospital-based cancer clinics in Western New York and Northern California; 38 medical oncologists (mean age 44.6 years; 11 (29%) female) and 265 community-dwelling adult patients with advanced nonhematologic cancer participated (mean age, 64.4 years, 146 [55.0%] female, 235 [89%] white; enrolled August 2012 to June 2014; followed for 3 years); 194 patients had participating caregivers., Interventions: Oncologists received individualized communication training using standardized patient instructors while patients received question prompt lists and individualized communication coaching to identify issues to address during an upcoming oncologist visit. Both interventions focused on engaging patients in consultations, responding to emotions, informing patients about prognosis and treatment choices, and balanced framing of information. Control participants received no training., Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified primary outcome was a composite measure of patient-centered communication coded from audio recordings of the first oncologist visit following patient coaching (intervention group) or enrollment (control). Secondary outcomes included the patient-physician relationship, shared understanding of prognosis, QOL, and aggressive treatments and hospice use in the last 30 days of life., Results: Data from 38 oncologists (19 randomized to intervention) and 265 patients (130 intervention) were analyzed. In fully adjusted models, the intervention resulted in clinically and statistically significant improvements in the primary physician-patient communication end point (adjusted intervention effect, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.06-0.62; P = .02). Differences in secondary outcomes were not statistically significant., Conclusions and Relevance: A combined intervention that included oncologist communication training and coaching for patients with advanced cancer was effective in improving patient-centered communication but did not affect secondary outcomes., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01485627.

Importance: Patients with advanced cancer often report expectations for survival that differ from their oncologists' expectations. Whether patients know that their survival expectations differ from those of their oncologists remains unknown. This distinction is important because knowingly expressing differences of opinion is important for shared decision making, whereas patients not knowing that their understanding differs from that of their treating physician is a potential marker of inadequate communication., Objective: To describe the prevalence, distribution, and proportion of prognostic discordance that is due to patients' knowingly vs unknowingly expressing an opinion that differs from that of their oncologist., Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study conducted at academic and community oncology practices in Rochester, New York, and Sacramento, California. The sample comprises 236 patients with advanced cancer and their 38 oncologists who participated in a randomized trial of an intervention to improve clinical communication. Participants were enrolled from August 2012 to June 2014 and followed up until October 2015., Main Outcomes and Measures: We ascertained discordance by comparing patient and oncologist ratings of 2-year survival probability. For discordant pairs, we determined whether patients knew that their opinions differed from those of their oncologists by asking the patients to report how they believed their oncologists rated their 2-year survival., Results: Among the 236 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.5 [11.4] years; 54% female), 161 patient-oncologist survival prognosis ratings (68%; 95% CI, 62%-75%) were discordant. Discordance was substantially more common among nonwhite patients compared with white patients (95% [95% CI, 86%-100%] vs 65% [95% CI, 58%-73%], respectively; P = .03). Among 161 discordant patients, 144 (89%) did not know that their opinions differed from that of their oncologists and nearly all of them (155 of 161 [96%]) were more optimistic than their oncologists., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, patient-oncologist discordance about survival prognosis was common and patients rarely knew that their opinions differed from those of their oncologists.

Objective: To test the feasibility and assess the uptake and acceptability of implementing a consumer questions programme, AskShareKnow, to encourage consumers to use the questions '1. What are my options; 2. What are the possible benefits and harms of those options; 3. How likely are each of those benefits and harms to happen to me?' These three questions have previously shown important effects in improving the quality of information provided during consultations and in facilitating patient involvement., Methods: This single-arm intervention study invited participants attending a reproductive and sexual health-care clinic to view a 4-min video-clip in the waiting room. Participants completed three questionnaires: (T1) prior to viewing the intervention; (T2) immediately after their consultation; and (T3) two weeks later., Results: A total of 121 (78%) participants viewed the video-clip before their consultation. Eighty-four (69%) participants asked one or more questions, and 35 (29%) participants asked all three questions. For those making a decision, 55 (87%) participants asked one or more questions, while 27 (43%) participants asked all three questions. Eighty-seven (72%) participants recommended the questions. After two weeks, 47 (49%) of the participants recalled the questions., Conclusions: Enabling patients to view a short video-clip before an appointment to improve information and involvement in health-care consultations is feasible and led to a high uptake of question asking in consultations., Practice Implications: This AskShareKnow programme is a simple and feasible method of training patients to use a brief consumer-targeted intervention that has previously shown important effects in improving the quality of information provided during consultations and in facilitating patient involvement and use of evidence-based questions., (©2015 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Physical activity (PA) counselling is challenging in primary care. It is unknown whether clinician training on the 5As (Ask, Advise, Agree, Assist, Arrange) improves PA counselling skills., Objective: To evaluate the effect of a clinician training intervention on PA counselling for underserved adults using the 5As framework., Methods: Pragmatic pilot clinical trial was used in the study. Clinicians (n = 13) were randomly assigned to two groups. Each group received the intervention consisting of four 1-hour training sessions to teach the 5As for PA counselling. Patient-clinician visits (n = 325) were audio recorded at baseline, immediately post-intervention, and at 6 months. Outcomes were the frequency and quality of PA discussions using the 5As, assessed by blinded coders., Results: Patients' mean age was 44 years; 75% were African American. PA was discussed in 37% (n = 119) of visits overall and did not change from baseline to follow-up. When PA discussions occurred, the frequency of 5As increased from baseline to follow-up for Advise (51-54%), Agree (11-26%), and Assist (11-17%); however, none of the 5As had a statistically significant increase. For Agree, exploration of patient willingness to engage in PA increased from 23% at baseline to 50% at follow-up., Conclusion: A clinician-directed intervention to improve PA counselling increased the frequency of Advise, Agree and Assist, and the quality of Ask and Agree statements, though the absolute numbers were small and only Agree reached statistical significance. Future research is needed to understand the factors that affect the optimal uptake and approach to 5As counselling., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: Clinician discomfort with death may affect care of patients but has not been well-studied. This study explores oncology clinicians' attitudes surrounding their own death and how these attitudes both affect and are affected by their care of dying patients and their communication with them., Methods: Qualitative interviews with physicians (n=25), nurse practitioners (n=7), and physician assistants (n=1) in medical or hematologic oncology clinical practices about communication styles, care of terminally ill patients, and personal perspectives about mortality., Results: Clinicians described three communication styles used with patients about death and dying: direct, indirect, or selectively direct. Most reported an acceptance of their mortality that was "conditional," meaning that that they could not fully know how they would respond if actually terminally ill. For many clinicians, caring for dying patients affected their outlook on life and death, and their own perspectives on life and death affected their approach to caring for dying patients., Conclusion: An awareness of personal mortality may help clinicians to discuss death more openly with patients and to provide better care., Practice Implications: Efforts to promote self-awareness and communication training are key to facilitating clear communication with and compassionate care of terminally ill patients., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Compassion has been extolled as a virtue in the physician-patient relationship as a response to patient suffering. However, there are few studies that systematically document the behavioural features of physician compassion and the ways in which physicians communicate compassion to patients., Objective: To develop a taxonomy of compassionate behaviours and statements expressed by the physician that can be discerned by an outside observer., Design: Qualitative analysis of audio-recorded office visits between oncologists and patients with advanced cancer., Setting and Participants: Oncologists (n = 23) and their patients with advanced cancer (n = 49) were recruited in the greater Rochester, New York, area. The physicians and patients were surveyed and had office visits audio recorded., Main Outcome Measures: Audio recordings were listened to for qualitative assessment of communication skills., Results: Our sensitizing framework was oriented around three elements of compassion: recognition of the patient's suffering, emotional resonance and movement towards addressing suffering. Statements of compassion included direct statements, paralinguistic expressions and performative comments. Compassion frequently unfolded over the course of a conversation rather than being a single discrete event. Additionally, non-verbal linguistic elements (e.g. silence) were frequently employed to communicate emotional resonance., Discussion and Conclusions: This study is the first to systematically catalogue instances of compassionate communication in physician-patient dialogues. Further refinement and validation of this preliminary taxonomy can guide future education and training interventions to facilitate compassion in physician-patient interactions., (© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To examine using audio-recorded encounters the extent and process of companion participation when discussing treatment choices and prognosis in the context of a life-limiting cancer diagnosis., Methods: Qualitative analysis of transcribed outpatient visits between 17 oncologists, 49 patients with advanced cancer, and 34 companions., Results: 46 qualifying companion statements were collected from a total of 28 conversations about treatment choices or prognosis. We identified a range of companion positions, from "pseudo-surrogacy" (companion speaking as if the patient were not able to speak for himself), "hearsay", "conflation of thoughts", "co-experiencing", "observation as an outsider", and "facilitation". Statements made by companions were infrequently directly validated by the patient., Conclusion: Companions often spoke on behalf of patients during discussions of prognosis and treatment choices, even when the patient was present and capable of speaking on his or her own behalf., Practice Implications: The conversational role of companions as well as whether the physician checks with the patient can determine whether a companion facilitates or inhibits patient autonomy and involvement. Physicians can reduce ambiguity and encourage patient participation by being aware of when and how companions may speak on behalf of patients and by corroborating the companion's statement with the patient., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

George Engel's biopsychosocial vision was simultaneously scientific and humanistic. He passionately presented an approach to clinical care to correct the progressive distancing of clinical care and research from the lived experience of the patient. Yet, while science provides ever greater evidence for the linkages between subjectively-reported experience and health outcomes, trainees and practicing clinicians struggle to realize a biopsychosocial vision in a pragmatic way. These challenges are magnified by the mandate for greater patient autonomy and participation in care, increased access to information, and overlaps and omissions as multiple professionals try to address the whole person. Importantly, trainees and clinicians get stuck implementing the biopsychosocial model partly because they have not developed the capacity for resilience, self-awareness, and self-monitoring. These capacities must accompany efforts to help clinicians engage more deeply with their patients; otherwise, they risk emotional distress, empathic failure, premature closure, and withdrawal from effective connections with patients. This article will explore ways in which Engel's biopsychosocial vision can be realized through building the capacities of clinicians to become more self-aware and resilient, and engage in compassionate action.

Purpose: Mindfulness (ie, purposeful and nonjudgmental attentiveness to one's own experience, thoughts, and feelings) is associated with physician well-being. We sought to assess whether clinician self-rated mindfulness is associated with the quality of patient care., Methods: We conducted an observational study of 45 clinicians (34 physicians, 8 nurse practitioners, and 3 physician assistants) caring for patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) who completed the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale and 437 HIV-infected patients at 4 HIV specialty clinic sites across the United States. We measured patient-clinician communication quality with audio-recorded encounters coded using the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) and patient ratings of care., Results: In adjusted analyses comparing clinicians with highest and lowest tertile mindfulness scores, patient visits with high-mindfulness clinicians were more likely to be characterized by a patient-centered pattern of communication (adjusted odds ratio of a patient-centered visit was 4.14; 95% CI, 1.58-10.86), in which both patients and clinicians engaged in more rapport building and discussion of psychosocial issues. Clinicians with high-mindfulness scores also displayed more positive emotional tone with patients (adjusted β = 1.17; 95% CI, 0.46-1.9). Patients were more likely to give high ratings on clinician communication (adjusted prevalence ratio [APR] = 1.48; 95% CI, 1.17-1.86) and to report high overall satisfaction (APR = 1.45; 95 CI, 1.15-1.84) with high-mindfulness clinicians. There was no association between clinician mindfulness and the amount of conversation about biomedical issues., Conclusions: Clinicians rating themselves as more mindful engage in more patient-centered communication and have more satisfied patients. Interventions should determine whether improving clinician mindfulness can also improve patient health outcomes.

Objective: To explore patients' perspectives across two cultures (Australia and USA) regarding communication about prognosis and end-of-life care issues and to consider the ways in which these discussions can be optimised., Methods: Fifteen Australian and 11 US patients completed individual semi-structured qualitative interviews. A further 8 US patients participated in a focus group. Interviews and focus group recordings were transcribed verbatim and interpreted using thematic text analysis with an inductive, data-driven approach., Results: Global themes identified included readiness for and outcomes of discussions of prognosis and end-of-life issues. Contributing to readiness were sub themes including patients' adjustment to and acceptance of their condition (together with seven factors promoting this), doctor and patient communication skills, mutual understandings and therapeutic relationship elements. Outcomes included sub themes of achievement of control and ability to move on. A model of the relationships between these factors, emergent cross cultural differences, and how factors may help to optimise these discussions are presented., Conclusion: Identified optimising factors illustrate Australian and US patients' perspectives regarding how prognosis and end-of-life issues can be discussed with minimised negative impact., Practice Implications: Recognition of factors promoting adjustment, acceptance and readiness and use of the communication skills and therapeutic relationship elements identified may assist in optimising discussions and help patients plan care, achieve more control of their situation and enjoy an optimal quality-of-life., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Undertreatment of pain is common even when caused by serious illness. We examined whether physician-patient communication (particularly language indicating physician certainty) was associated with incomplete (i.e., premature closure) of pain assessment among patients with serious illness. Standardized patients (SPs) trained to portray patients with serious illness conducted unannounced, covertly audio-recorded visits to 20 consenting family physicians and 20 medical specialists. We coded extent of pain assessment, physician voice tone, and a measure of the degree to which physicians explored and validated patient concerns. To assess physician certainty, we searched transcripts for use of words that conveyed certainty using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count program. SP role fidelity was 94%, and few physicians were suspicious that they had seen an SP (14% of visits). Regression analyses showed that physicians who used more certainty language engaged in less thorough assessment of pain (β = -0.48, p < .05). Conversely, physicians who engaged in more exploring and validating of patient concerns (β = 0.27, p < .05) had higher ratings on anxiety/concerned voice tone (β = 0.25, p <.01) and engaged in more thorough assessment of pain. Together, these three factors accounted for 38% of the variance in pain assessment. Physicians who convey certainty in discussions with patients suffering from pain may be more likely to close prematurely their assessment of pain. We found that expressions of physician concern and responsiveness (curiosity) were associated with superior pain assessment. Further study is needed to determine whether these associations are causal and mutable.

In the context of serious illness, individuals usually rely on others to help them think and feel their way through difficult decisions. To help us to understand why, when, and how individuals involve trusted others in sharing information, deliberation, and decision making, we offer the concept of shared mind-ways in which new ideas and perspectives can emerge through the sharing of thoughts, feelings, perceptions, meanings, and intentions among 2 or more people. We consider how shared mind manifests in relationships and organizations in general, building on studies of collaborative cognition, attunement, and sensemaking. Then, we explore how shared mind might be promoted through communication, when appropriate, and the implications of shared mind for decision making and patient autonomy. Next, we consider a continuum of patient-centered approaches to patient-clinician interactions. At one end of the continuum, an interactional approach promotes knowing the patient as a person, tailoring information, constructing preferences, achieving consensus, and promoting relational autonomy. At the other end, a transactional approach focuses on knowledge about the patient, information-as-commodity, negotiation, consent, and individual autonomy. Finally, we propose that autonomy and decision making should consider not only the individual perspectives of patients, their families, and members of the health care team, but also the perspectives that emerge from the interactions among them. By drawing attention to shared mind, clinicians can observe in what ways they can promote it through bidirectional sharing of information and engaging in shared deliberation.

Objective: To test the effect of three questions (what are my options? what are the benefits and harms? and how likely are these?), on information provided by physicians about treatment options., Methods: We used a cross-over trial using two unannounced standardized patients (SPs) simulating a presentation of mild-moderate depression. One SP was assigned the intervention role (asking the questions), the other the control role. An intervention and control SP visited each physician, order allocated randomly. The study was conducted in family practices in Sydney, Australia, during 2008-09. Data were obtained from consultation audio-recordings. Information about treatment options and patient involvement were analyzed using the Assessing Communication about Evidence and Patient Preferences (ACEPP) tool and the OPTION tool., Results: Thirty-six SP visits were completed (18 intervention, 18 control). Scores were higher in intervention consultations than controls: ACEPP scores 21.4 vs. 16.6, p<0.001, difference 4.7 (95% CI 2.3-7.0) and OPTION scores 36 vs. 25, p=0.001, difference 11.5 (95% CI 5.1-17.8), indicating greater information provision and behavior supporting patient involvement., Conclusion: Asking these three questions improved information given by family physicians and increased physician facilitation of patient involvement. Practice implications. These questions can drive evidence-based practice, strengthen patient-physician communication, and improve safety and quality., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To identify attitudinal and interpersonal barriers to depression care-seeking and disclosure in primary care and in so doing, evaluate the primary care paradigm for depression care in the United States., Methods: Fifteen qualitative focus group interviews in three cities. Study participants were English-speaking men and women aged 25-64 with first-hand knowledge of depression. Transcripts were analyzed iteratively for recurring themes., Results: Participants expressed reservations about the ability of primary care physicians (PCPs) to meet their mental health needs. Specific barriers included problems with PCP competence and openness as well as patient-physician trust. While many reflected positively on their primary care experiences, some doubted PCPs' knowledge of mental health disorders and believed mental health concerns fell outside the bounds of primary care. Low-income participants in particular shared stories about the essentiality, and ultimate fragility, of patient-PCP trust., Conclusion: Patients with depression may be deterred from care-seeking or disclosure by relational barriers including perceptions of PCPs' mental health-related capabilities and interests., Practice Implications: PCPs should continue to develop their depression management skills while supporting vigorous efforts to inform the public that primary care is a safe and appropriate venue for treatment of common mental health conditions., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To examine physician communication associated with prognosis discussion with cancer patients., Methods: We conducted a study of physician-patient communication using trained actors. Thirty-nine physicians, including 19 oncologists and 20 family physicians participated in the study. Actors carried two hidden digital recorders to unannounced visits. We coded recordings for eliciting and validating patient concerns, attentive voice tone, and prognosis talk., Results: Actor adherence to role averaged 92% and the suspected detection rate was 14%. In a multiple regression, eliciting and validating patient concerns (beta=.40, C.I.=0.11-0.68) attentiveness (beta=.32, C.I.=0.06-0.58) and being an oncologist vs. a family physician (beta=.33, C.I.=0.33-1.36) accounted for 46% of the variance in prognosis communication., Conclusion: Eliciting and validating patient concerns and attentiveness voice tone is associated with increased discussion of cancer patient prognosis as is physician specialty., Practice Implications: Eliciting and validating patient concerns and attentive voice tone may be markers of physician willingness to discuss emotionally difficult topics. Educating physicians about mindful practice may increase their ability to collect important information and to attend to patient concerns.

Background: Physicians' use of patient-centered communication (PCC) affects important outcomes of care. Although there is evidence that both patient and physician gender affect the process of care, there is limited information about their impact on PCC. Our objective was to investigate the influence of patient and physician gender, as well as gender concordance between patient and physician, on the patient centeredness of primary care visits., Methods: Participating primary care physicians (100 family physicians and internists) with clinical practices in the Rochester, New York area, had two unannounced covertly audiorecorded standardized patients' visits. Encounters were analyzed using the Measure of Patient-Centered Communication (MPCC), which measures three aspects of physician communication: Component 1 (Exploring both the disease and illness experience), Component 2 (Understanding the whole person), and Component 3 (Finding common ground)., Results: Compared with male patients, females had interactions characterized by greater PCC (total and Component 2 scores). Whereas female physicians exhibited higher Component 1 scores, male physicians had higher Component 2 scores, and gender-concordant visits also exhibited higher Component 2 scores. However, there were no significant differences in total MPCC scores for encounters of female vs. male physicians or for gender-concordant compared with discordant patient-physician dyads., Conclusions: These findings add further evidence that patient gender can affect the interactions between physicians and patients. More research is needed to understand why male patients are less likely to have medical encounters in which their physicians employ a patient-centered practice style.

Background: Depression treatment is often initially sought from primary care physicians., Objective: To explore the influence of physician personality on depression assessments., Design: Secondary analysis of data collected in a randomized controlled trial., Setting: Offices of primary care physicians in Rochester, NY., Participants: Forty-six physicians; six female actors., Intervention: Eighty-six unannounced standardized patient (SPs) visits; physicians saw one SP with major depression and one with adjustment disorder., Measurements: SPs listened to audiotapes and completed a form on doctoring behaviors and symptom inquiry immediately following the visit. For the assessment of diagnostic documentation, SPs' medical records were reviewed. Physician personality was assessed via items from the NEO-PI-R., Results: Physicians who are more dutiful and more vulnerable were more likely to document a diagnosis of depression; those who are more dutiful also asked fewer questions concerning mood symptoms., Limitation: Roles portrayed by the SPs may not reflect the experience of a typical primary care patient. Most of the PCPs were white men. The sample of PCPs was limited to a single geographic location. Effect sizes were modest., Conclusions: The clinical, educational, and translational, implications of research showing that physician personality traits could affect practice behaviors warrant consideration. Current models of treatment for depression in primary care could be engineered to accommodate the variability in physician personality. Given that there is no single "correct" way to ask about mood disorders or suicide, clinicians are encouraged to adopt an approach that fits their personal style and preferences.

Background: Patient-centered communication (PCC) is associated with more appropriate treatment of depression in primary care. Aside from patient presentation, little is known about other influences on PCC. We investigated whether PCC is influenced by personality dispositions of primary care providers, independent of patient presentation., Methods: Forty-six primary care providers completed personality scales from the NEO-Personality Inventory, revised and provided care to 88 standardized patients presenting with either major depression or adjustment disorder with comorbid musculoskeletal symptoms, either making or not making a medication request. Coders scored each visit using the measure of PCC, assessing physicians' ability to explore the patient's illness experience (component 1), understand the patient's psychosocial context (component 2), and involve the patient in collaborative discussions of treatment (component 3)., Results: Adjusting for physician demographics, training, and patient presentation, physicians who were more open to feelings explored the patient's experience of illness more (P = 0.05). More dutiful, or rule-bound physicians engaged in greater exploration of the patient's psychosocial and life circumstances (P = 0.04), but involved the patient less in treatment discussions (P = 0.03). Physicians reporting more anxious vulnerability also involved the patient less (P = 0.03). Physician demographics, training, and patient presentation explained 4-7% of variance in the measure of patient-centered communication components, with personality explaining an additional 4-7% of the variance., Conclusions: Understanding of personality dispositions that promote or detract from PCC may help medical educators better identify trainees of varying aptitude, facilitate medical career counseling, and address individual training needs in a tailored fashion.

Background: Although shared decision making (SDM) has been reported to facilitate quality care, few studies have explored the extent to which SDM is implemented in primary care and factors that influence its application. This study assesses the extent to which physicians enact SDM behaviors and describes factors associated with physicians' SDM behaviors within the context of depression care., Methods: In a secondary analysis of data from a randomized experiment, we coded 287 audiorecorded interactions between physicians and standardized patients (SPs) using the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION) system to assess physician SDM behaviors. We performed a series of generalized linear mixed model analyses to examine physician and patient characteristics associated with SDM behavior., Results: The mean (SD) OPTION score was 11.4 (3.3) of 48 possible points. Older physicians (partial correlation coefficient = -0.29; beta = -0.09; P < .01) and physicians who practiced in a health maintenance organization setting (beta = -1.60; P < .01) performed fewer SDM behaviors. Longer visit duration was associated with more SDM behaviors (partial correlation coefficient = 0.31; beta = 0.08; P < .01). In addition, physicians enacted more SDM behaviors with SPs who made general (beta = 2.46; P < .01) and brand-specific (beta = 2.21; P < .01) medication requests compared with those who made no request., Conclusions: In the context of new visits for depressive symptoms, primary care physicians performed few SDM behaviors. However, physician SDM behaviors are influenced by practice setting and patient-initiated requests for medication. Additional research is needed to identify interventions that encourage SDM when indicated.

Background: The 5A (Ask, Advise, Agree, Assist, Arrange) model, used to promote patient behavior changes in primary care, can also be applied to physical activity. Our goal was to assess primary care physicians' use of the 5A model in discussions with underserved populations about physical activity., Methods: We analyzed 51 audio-recorded, transcribed office visits on randomly selected patient care days and after-visit patient surveys with adults in 2 community health centers in Rochester, New York., Results: The patient sample was 51% African-American and predominantly female (70%), with the majority having a high school-level education or less (66%) and an annual household income < dollars 39,000 (57%). Physical activity was discussed during 19 of the 51 visits, which included 16 (84%) visits with "Ask"; 10 (53%) with "Advise"; 4 (21%) with "Agree"; 5 (26%) with "Assist"; and 0 with "Arrange" statements. Most discussions of physical activity contained several Ask or Advise statements but few Agree, Assist, or Arrange statements., Conclusion: Communication about physical activity that included Agree, Arrange, and Assist statements of the 5A model was infrequent. Health promotion interventions in underserved populations should target these steps and prompt patients to initiate communication to improve physical activity.

Background: The ways in which patients' requests for antidepressants affect physicians' prescribing behavior are poorly understood., Objective: To describe physicians' affective and cognitive responses to standardized patients' (SPs) requests for antidepressants, as well as the attitudinal and contextual factors influencing prescribing behavior., Design: Focus group interviews and brief demographic questionnaires., Participants: Twenty-two primary care physicians in 6 focus groups; all had participated in a prior RCT of the influence of patients' requests on physicians' prescribing., Measurements: Iterative review of interview transcripts, involving qualitative coding and thematic analysis., Results: Physicians participating in the focus groups were frequently unaware of and denied the degree to which their thinking was biased by patient requests, but were able to recognize such biases after facilitated reflection. Common affective responses included annoyance and empathy. Common cognitive reactions resulted in further diagnostic inquiry or in acquiescing to the patient's demands to save time or build the patient-clinician relationship. Patients' requests for medication prompted the participants to err on the side of overtreating versus careful review of clinical indications. Lack of time and participants' attitudes--toward the role of the patient and the pharmaceutical ads--also influenced their responses, prompting them to interpret patient requests as diagnostic clues or opportunities for efficiency., Conclusions: This study provides a taxonomy of affective and cognitive responses to patients' requests for medications and the underlying attitudes and contextual factors influencing them. Improved capacity for moment-to-moment self-awareness during clinical reasoning processes may increase the appropriateness of prescribing.

Background: Previous work suggests that exploration and validation of patients' concerns is associated with greater patient trust, lower health care costs, improved counseling, and more guideline-concordant care., Objective: To describe physicians' responses to patients' worries, how their responses varied according to clinical context (straightforward versus medically unexplained symptoms [MUS]) and associations between their responses and patients' ratings of interpersonal aspects of care., Design: Multimethod study. For each physician, we surveyed 50 current patients and covertly audiorecorded 2 unannounced standardized patient (SP) visits. SPs expressed worry about "something serious" in 2 scenarios: straightforward gastroesophageal reflux or poorly characterized chest pain with MUS., Participants: One hundred primary care physicians and 4,746 patients., Measurements: Patient surveys measuring interpersonal aspects of care (trust, physician knowledge of the patient, satisfaction, and patient activation). Qualitative coding of 189 transcripts followed by descriptive, multivariate, and lag-sequential analyses., Results: Physicians offered a mean of 3.1 responses to each of 613 SP prompts. Biomedical inquiry and explanations, action, nonspecific acknowledgment, and reassurance were common, whereas empathy, expressions of uncertainty, and exploration of psychosocial factors and emotions were uncommon. Empathy expressed during SP visits was associated with higher patient ratings of interpersonal aspects of care. After adjusting for demographics and comorbidities, the association was only statistically significant for the MUS role. Empathy was most likely to occur if expressed at the beginning of the conversational sequence., Conclusions: Empathy is associated with higher patient ratings of interpersonal care, especially when expressed in situations involving ambiguity. Empathy should be expressed early after patient expressions of worry.

Background: The value of physician self-disclosure (MD-SD) in creating successful patient-physician partnerships has not been demonstrated., Methods: To describe antecedents, delivery, and effects of MD-SD in primary care visits, we conducted a descriptive study using sequence analysis of transcripts of 113 unannounced, undetected, standardized patient visits to primary care physicians. Our main outcome measures were the number of MD-SDs per visit; number of visits with MD-SDs; word count; antecedents, timing, and effect of MD-SD on subsequent physician and patient communication; content and focus of MD-SD., Results: The MD-SDs included discussion of personal emotions and experiences, families and/or relationships, professional descriptions, and personal experiences with the patient's diagnosis. Seventy-three MD-SDs were identified in 38 (34%) of 113 visits. Ten MD-SDs (14%) were a response to a patient question. Forty-four (60%) followed patient symptoms, family, or feelings; 29 (40%) were unrelated. Only 29 encounters (21%) returned to the patient topic preceding the disclosure. Most MD-SDs (n=62; 85%) were not considered useful to the patient by the research team. Eight MD-SDs (11%) were coded as disruptive., Conclusions: Practicing primary care physicians disclosed information about themselves or their families in 34% of new visits with unannounced, undetected, standardized patients. There was no evidence of positive effect of MD-SDs; some appeared disruptive. Primary care physicians should consider when self-disclosing whether other behaviors such as empathy might accomplish their goals more effectively.

Purpose: This study examined moderating effects of physician communication behaviors on relationships between patient requests for antidepressant medications and subsequent prescribing., Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized trial. Primary care physicians (N = 152) each had 1 or 2 unannounced visits from standardized patients portraying the role of major depression or adjustment disorder. Each standardized patient made brand-specific, general, or no requests for antidepressants. We coded covert visit audio recordings for physicians' exploration and validation of patient concerns (EVC). Effects of communication on prescribing (the main outcome) were evaluated using logistic regression analysis, accounting for clustering and for site, physician, and visit characteristics, and stratified by request type and standardized patient role., Results: In the absence of requests, high-EVC visits were associated with higher rates of prescribing of antidepressants for major depression. In low-EVC visits, prescribing was driven by patient requests (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] for request vs no request = 43.54, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.69-1,120.87; P < or = .005), not clinical indications (AOR for depression vs adjustment disorder = 1.82; 95% CI, 0.33-9.89; P = NS). In contrast, in high-EVC visits, prescribing was driven equally by requests (AOR = 4.02; 95% CI, 1.67-9.68; P < or = .005) and clinical indications (AOR = 4.70; 95% CI, 2.18-10.16; P < or = .005). More thorough history taking of depression symptoms did not mediate these results., Conclusions: Quality of care for depression is improved when patients participate more actively in the encounter and when physicians explore and validate patient concerns. Communication interventions to improve quality of care should target both physician and patient communication behaviors. Cognitive mechanisms that link patient requests and EVC to quality of care warrant further study.

Background: Providing antidepressant information to patients may foster greater adherence to therapy., Objective: To assess physician information-giving while prescribing antidepressants, and to identify factors that influence the provision of information., Design: Randomized experiment using standardized patients (SPs). Standardized patients roles were generated by crossing 2 clinical conditions (major depression or adjustment disorder) with 3 medication request types (brand-specific, general, or none)., Participants: One hundred and fifty-two general internists and family physicians recruited from solo and group practices and health maintenance organizations; cooperation rates ranged from 53% to 61%., Measurements: We assessed physician information-giving by analyzing audio-recordings of interactions between physicians and SPs, and collected physician background information by survey. Generalized estimating equations were used to examine the influence of patient and physician factors on physicians' provision of information., Results: One hundred and one physicians prescribed antidepressants, accounting for 131 interactions. The mean age of physicians was 46.3 years; 69% were males. Physicians mentioned an average of 5.7 specific topics of antidepressant-related information (of a possible maximum of 11). The most frequently mentioned topic was purpose (96.1%). Physicians infrequently provided information about the duration of therapy (34.9%) and costs (21.4%). Standardized patients who presented with major depression received less information than those with adjustment disorder, and older and solo/private practice physicians provided significantly less information to SPs., Conclusions: Physicians provide limited information to patients while prescribing antidepressants, often omitting critical information that may promote adherence. Mechanisms are needed to ensure that patients receive pertinent antidepressant information.

Objective: To understand how physicians communicate may contribute to the mistrust and poor clinical outcomes observed in patients who present with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS)., Methods: After providing informed consent, 100 primary care physicians in greater Rochester, New York, were visited by two unannounced covert standardized patients (actors, or SPs) portraying two chest pain roles: classic symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with nausea and insomnia (the GERD role) and poorly characterized chest pain with fatigue and dizziness (the MUS role). The visits were surreptitiously audiorecorded and analyzed using the Measure of Patient-Centered Communication (MPCC), which scores physicians on their exploration of the patients' experience of illness (component 1) and psychosocial context (component 2), and their attempts to find common ground on diagnosis and treatment (component 3)., Results: In multivariate analyses, MUS visits yielded significantly lower scores on MPCC component 1 (p = .01). Subanalysis of component 1 scores showed that patients' symptoms were not explored as fully and that validation was less likely to be used in response to patient concerns in the MUS than in the GERD visits. Component 2 and component 3 were unchanged., Conclusion: Physicians' inquiry into and validation of symptoms in patients with MUS was less common compared with more medically straightforward patient presentations. Further research should study the relationship between communication variables and poor clinical outcomes, misunderstandings, mutual distrust, and inappropriate healthcare utilization in this population, and test interventions to address this problem.

Objective: To explore limitations of current communication theory by considering different perspectives of researchers, clinicians, patients and teachers of communication., Method: Theory development based on limitations of the current communication research literature due to inconsistencies between patient reports and observed communication behavior., Results: While researchers focus on the mechanics and techniques of communication, patients seek relationships in which they experience trust, the right amount of autonomy, caring, and expertise. Patients', physicians', and communication experts' perspectives do not always define the same problems and often point to different solutions., Conclusions: In addition to studying clinician behaviors and patient perceptions of care, communication research should focus on five additional factors: what patients notice, want and need, and how their perspectives differ from those of physicians and researchers; the context, including illness severity and type and family influences; how complex health systems facilitate and impede communication; patients' influences on physician communication behavior; and habits of mind that promote attentive care.

Many prior studies which suggest a relationship between physician interactional style and patient outcomes may have been confounded by relying solely on patient reports, examining very few patients per physician, or not demonstrating evidence of a physician effect on the outcomes. We examined whether physician interactional style, measured both by patient report and objective encounter ratings, is related to performance on quality of care indicators. We also tested for the presence of physician effects on the performance indicators. Using data on 100 US primary care physician (PCP) claims data on 1,21,606 of their managed care patients, survey data on 4746 of their visiting patients, and audiotaped encounters of 2 standardized patients with each physician, we examined the relationships between claims-based quality of care indicators and both survey-derived patient perceptions of their physicians and objective ratings of interactional style in the audiotaped standardized patient encounters. Multi-level models examined whether physician effects (variance components) on care indicators were mediated by patient perceptions or objective ratings of interactional style. We found significant physician effects associated with glycohemoglobin and cholesterol testing. There was also a clinically significant association between better patient perceptions of their physicians and more glycohemoglobin testing. Multi-level analyses revealed, however, that the physician effect on glycohemoglobin testing was not mediated by patient perceived physician interaction style. In conclusion, similar to prior studies, we found evidence of an apparent relationship between patient perceptions of their physician and patient outcomes. However, the apparent relationships found in this study between patient perceptions of their physicians and patient care processes do not reflect physician style, but presumably reflect unmeasured patient confounding. Multi-level modeling may contribute to better understanding of the relationships between physician style and patient outcomes.

The goal of patient-centered communication (PCC) is to help practitioners provide care that is concordant with the patient's values, needs and preferences, and that allows patients to provide input and participate actively in decisions regarding their health and health care. PCC is widely endorsed as a central component of high-quality health care, but it is unclear what it is and how to measure it. PCC includes four communication domains: the patient's perspective, the psychosocial context, shared understanding, and sharing power and responsibility. Problems in measuring PCC include lack of theoretical and conceptual clarity, unexamined assumptions, lack of adequate control for patient characteristics and social contexts, modest correlations between survey and observational measures, and overlap of PCC with other constructs. We outline problems in operationalizing PCC, choosing tools for assessing PCC, choosing data sources, identifying mediators of PCC, and clarifying outcomes of PCC. We propose nine areas for improvement: (1) developing theory-based operational definitions of PCC; (2) clarifying what is being measured; (3) accounting for the communication behaviors of each individual in the encounter as well as interactions among them; (4) accounting for context; (5) validating of instruments; (6) interpreting patient ratings of their physicians; (7) doing longitudinal studies; (8) examining pathways and mediators of links between PCC and outcomes; and (9) dealing with the complexity of the construct of PCC. We discuss the use of observational and survey measures, multi-method and mixed-method research, and standardized patients. The increasing influence of the PCC literature to guide medical education, licensure of clinicians, and assessments of quality provides a strong rationale for further clarification of these measurement issues.

Objectives: To conduct a pilot study to examine physician patient interaction when elderly patients are accompanied during a medical visit., Methods: This was a study in which 30 patients were randomly assigned to be accompanied (13) or unaccompanied (17) during a regular medical visit to their physician. Visits were tape recorded, transcribed, and coded with the Measure of Patient-Centered Communication (MPCC) and with the Rochester Participatory Decision-Making Scale (RPAD)., Results: We found no differences between the number of words spoken in accompanied versus unaccompanied visits, comparing patients alone with patients and companions combined. Physicians spoke longer without interruption in accompanied encounters (39.9 vs 78.6 words per speech turn). There were no differences in the level of MPCC or in the level of participatory decision making between the 2 types of visits. In accompanied visits, patients introduced most of the concerns and physicians discussed concerns with patients more than with companions., Conclusions: Previously reported differences in accompanied versus unaccompanied visits may reflect patients' preferences for being accompanied, the role they wish their companion to play, and the patients' health status. Being accompanied by a family member or friend does not result in less attention being paid to patients' concerns.

Purpose: Although patient-centered communication is associated with improved health and patient trust, information about the impact of patient-centered communication on health care costs is limited. We studied the relationship between patient-centered communication and diagnostic testing expenditures., Methods: We undertook an observational cross-sectional study using covert standardized patient visits to study physician interaction style and its relationship to diagnostic testing costs. Participants were 100 primary care physicians in the Rochester, NY, area participating in a large managed care organization (MCO). Audio recordings of 2 standardized patient encounters for each physician were rated using the Measure of Patient-Centered Communication (MPCC). Standardized diagnostic testing and other expenditures, adjusted for patient demographics and case-mix, were derived from the MCO claims database. Analyses were adjusted for demographics and standardized patient detection., Results: Compared with other physicians, those who had MPCC scores in the lowest tercile had greater standardized diagnostic testing expenditures (11.0% higher, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.5%-17.8%) and greater total standardized expenditures (3.5% higher, 95% CI, 1.0%-6.1%). Whereas lower MPCC scores were associated with shorter visits, adjustment for visit length and standardized patient detection did not affect the relationship with expenditures. Total (testing, ambulatory and hospital care) expenditures were also greater for physicians who had lower MPCC scores, an effect primarily associated with the effect on testing expenditures., Conclusions: Patient-centered communication is associated with fewer diagnostic testing expenditures but also with increased visit length. Because costs and visit length may affect physicians' and health systems' willingness to endorse and practice a patient-centered approach, these results should be confirmed in future randomized trials.

Purpose: We wanted develop a reliable and valid objective measure of patient-physician collaborative decision making, the Rochester Participatory Decision-Making Scale (RPAD)., Methods: Based on an informed decision-making model, the RPAD assesses physician behavior that encourages patient participation in decision making. Data were from a study of physician-patient communication of 100 primary care physicians. Physician encounters with 2 standardized patients each were audio recorded, resulting in 193 useable recordings. Transcribed recordings were coded both with RPAD and the Measure of Patient-Centered Communication (MPCC), which includes a related construct, Finding Common Ground. Two sets of dependent variables were derived from (1) surveys of the standardized patients and (2) surveys of 50 patients of each physician, who assessed their perceptions of the physician-patient relationship., Results: The RPAD was coded reliably (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.72). RPAD correlated with Finding Common Ground (r = 0.19, P < .01) and with the survey measures of standardized patient's perceptions of the physician-patient relationship (r = 0.32 - 0.36 [P < .005]) but less with the patient survey measures (r = 0.06 to 0.07 [P < .005]). Multivariate, hierarchical analyses suggested that the RPAD made a more robust contribution to explaining variance in standardized patient perceptions than did the MPCC Finding Common Ground., Conclusions: The RPAD shows promise as a reliable, valid, and easy-to-code objective measure of participatory decision making.

Objectives: To develop a reliable and valid computer coded measure to assess emotional expression from transcripts of physician-patient interactions., Methods: Physician encounters with two standardized patients (SPs) were audiotaped. Fifty patients from each physician (n = 100 primary care physicians) completed surveys that assessed patients' perceptions of their relationships with physicians. Audio-recordings of 193 patient-physician encounters were transcribed and computer-coded to derive a percent emotion words, and research assistants completed the Measure of Patient-Centered Communication (MPCC)., Results: After adjustment for potential confounders, regression analyses revealed physicians' use of emotion words and the MPCC contribute independently to patients' and SPs' perceptions of their relationship with physicians., Conclusions: The computerized coding of emotion words shows promise as a reliable, valid, and simple method to code transcript data of physician-patient interactions. This method may be expanded to examine other aspects of physician language and does not require coder training.

Background: The assessment of communication competence has become a major priority of medical educational, policy, and licensing organizations in the United States and Canada. Multiple tools are available to assess communication competence, but there are few studies that compare the tools., Methods: A consensus panel of six family medicine educators evaluated 15 instruments measuring the physician-patient interview. The primary evaluation criteria came from the Kalamazoo Consensus Statement (KCS), which derived from a multidisciplinary panel of experts that defined seven essential elements of physician-patient communication. We evaluated psychometric properties of the instruments and other assessment criteria felt to be important to family physicians (exploring family issues, interview efficiency, and usability/practicality)., Results: Instruments that received the highest ratings on KCS elements were designed for faculty raters and varied in their practicality/usability ratings and psychometric properties. Few instruments were rated high on psychometric properties or exploring family issues., Conclusions: The process successfully reviewed and provided a framework for assessing communication skills instruments. There is a need to expand the study, including use of a larger cohort of reviewers to provide more validity to the results and minimize potential biases.

Background: Patients' trust in their health care providers may affect their satisfaction and health outcomes. Despite the potential importance of trust, there are few studies of its correlates using objective measures of physician behavior during encounters with patients., Methods: We assessed physician behavior and length of visit using audio tapes of encounters of 2 unannounced standardized patients (SPs) with 100 community-based primary care physicians participating in a large managed care organization. Physician behavior was assessed via 3 components of the Measure of Patient-Centered Communication (MPCC) scale. The Primary Care Assessment Survey (PCAS) trust subscale was administered to 50 patients from each physician's practice and to SPs. We used multilevel modeling to examine the associations between physicians' Patient-Centered Communication during the SP visits and ratings of trust by both patients and SPs., Results: Component 1 of the MPCC, which explored the patient's experience of the disease and illness, was independently associated with patient's rating of trust in their physician. A I SD increase in this score was associated with 0.08 SD increase in trust (95% confidence interval 0.02-0.14). Each additional minute spent in SP visits was also independently associated with 0.01 SD increase in patient trust. (95% confidence interval 0.0001-0.02). Component 1 and visit length were also positively associated with SP trust ratings., Conclusions: Physician verbal behavior during an SP encounter is associated with trust reported by SPs and patients. Research is needed to determine whether interventions designed to enhance physicians' exploration patients' experiences of disease and illness improves trust. Key Words: physician-patient relationship, patient-centered care, trust, physician behavior

Context: Informed patients are more likely to actively participate in their care, make wiser decisions, come to a common understanding with their physicians, and adhere more fully to treatment; however, currently there are no evidence-based guidelines for discussing clinical evidence with patients in the process of making medical decisions., Objective: To identify ways to communicate evidence that improve patient understanding, involvement in decisions, and outcomes., Data Sources and Study Selection: Systematic review of MEDLINE for the period 1966-2003 and review of reference lists of retrieved articles to identify original research dealing with communication between clinicians and patients and directly addressing methods of presenting clinical evidence to patients., Data Extraction: Two investigators and a research assistant screened 367 abstracts and 2 investigators reviewed 51 full-text articles, yielding 8 potentially relevant articles., Data Synthesis: Methods for communicating clinical evidence to patients include nonquantitative general terms, numerical translation of clinical evidence, graphical representations, and decision aids. Focus-group data suggest presenting options and/or equipoise before asking patients about preferred decision-making roles or formats for presenting details. Relative risk reductions may be misleading; absolute risk is preferred. Order of information presented and time-frame of outcomes can bias patient understanding. Limited evidence supports use of human stick figure graphics or faces for single probabilities and vertical bar graphs for comparative information. Less-educated and older patients preferred proportions to percentages and did not appreciate confidence intervals. Studies of decision aids rarely addressed patient-physician communication directly. No studies addressed clinical outcomes of discussions of clinical evidence., Conclusions: There is a paucity of evidence to guide how physicians can most effectively share clinical evidence with patients facing decisions; however, basing our recommendations largely on related studies and expert opinion, we describe means of accomplishing 5 communication tasks to address in framing and communicating clinical evidence: understanding the patient's (and family members') experience and expectations; building partnership; providing evidence, including a balanced discussion of uncertainties; presenting recommendations informed by clinical judgment and patient preferences; and checking for understanding and agreement.

Patient-physician communication has been conceptualized as both a skill and as a way of mindful "being in relation" to the other. Summarizing research and theoretical analyses, the two approaches are differentiated. The skill-focused approach to communicative competence relies heavily on observed behaviors; the mindful being-in-relation approach emphasizes the perceived effects of the relationship on the participants. The distinctions between these two approaches are important to teaching and research. Teaching can, and should, focus on both changing behaviors and on the personal development of mindfulness in the learner. Research methods should routinely include both observer and participant responses. Reconciling these two views supports the thesis that good communication is both a skill and a way of being, that it is both innate and teachable, and that it must be cultivated by integrated methods of teaching and research.

Background: Care teams are increasingly expected to attend to the needs of patient's personal caregivers (e.g., family members). Improving communication among oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and their personal caregivers might enhance caregivers' experiences of end-of-life (EoL) cancer care and bereavement outcomes. Objective: To explore the effects of the Values and Options in Cancer Care intervention on caregivers' experiences of EoL care and bereavement outcomes. Design: We developed a brief behavioral intervention to improve communication among oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and their personal caregivers. The intervention was designed to help patients/caregivers ask questions, express concerns, and help oncologists respond effectively. We randomly assigned oncologists (and their patients/caregivers) to the intervention or usual care. Setting/Subjects: Medical oncologists in NY and CA; patients/personal caregivers with advanced cancer. Measurements: Two months after the patient's death, caregivers completed three instruments assessing their experiences of EoL care. Seven months after the patient's death, caregivers completed the Prolonged Grief Disorder-13 (PG-13; primary prespecified outcome), the Purpose-in-Life scale, and scales assessing mental health function, depression, and anxiety. Results: The intervention did not significantly improve caregivers' scores on the PG-13 (p = 0.21), mental health function, depression, or anxiety, but it did improve purpose-in-life scores (p = 0.018). Cohen's d (95% confidence interval) for all three experiences of EoL care outcomes were promising, ranging from 0.22 (-0.19 to 0.63) to 0.39 (-0.07 to 0.86) although none was statistically significant. Conclusion: Preliminary findings show promise that scalable interventions in cancer care settings may improve caregiver experiences with cancer care and some bereavement outcomes.