Search

Objective: This study assessed patient-centered communication (PCC) among newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients. PCC, a key part of patient-centered care, contributes directly and indirectly to health-related quality of life, satisfaction with care, and other outcomes., Methods: We conducted a survey of patients in North Carolina, using a theoretically-based and validated measure that provides an overall PCC score and subscale scores for six PCC functions., Results: A total of 501 patients participated. The highest scores were for the PCC functions of Fostering Healing Relationships, Exchanging Information, and Making Decisions. The lowest scores were for the functions of Managing Uncertainty and Enabling Self-Management, yet these were functions respondents rated as most important. Respondents who thought about more than one health professional (versus oncologist) reported better communication. PCC also varied by treatment type, mental and physical health status, age, race, and education., Conclusion: Most patients reported good communication overall, however patients in poor physical health and mental health reported worse communication. The quality of communication varied across the PCC functions., Practice Implications: Health professionals need to use a PCC approach that builds trust, respects the patient, provides salient information that patients can understand, provides emotional support, and facilitates the patient's engagement in care., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the psychometric properties of questions that assess patient perceptions of patient-provider communication and design measures of patient-centered communication (PCC)., Methods: Participants (adults with colon or rectal cancer living in North Carolina) completed a survey at 2 to 3 months post-diagnosis. The survey included 87 questions in six PCC Functions: Exchanging Information, Fostering Health Relationships, Making Decisions, Responding to Emotions, Enabling Patient Self-Management, and Managing Uncertainty. For each Function we conducted factor analyses, item response theory modeling, and tests for differential item functioning, and assessed reliability and construct validity., Results: Participants included 501 respondents; 46% had a high school education or less. Reliability within each Function ranged from 0.90 to 0.96. The PCC-Ca-36 (36-question survey; reliability=0.94) and PCC-Ca-6 (6-question survey; reliability=0.92) measures differentiated between individuals with poor and good health (i.e., known-groups validity) and were highly correlated with the HINTS communication scale (i.e., convergent validity)., Conclusion: This study provides theory-grounded PCC measures found to be reliable and valid in colorectal cancer patients in North Carolina. Future work should evaluate measure validity over time and in other cancer populations., Practice Implications: The PCC-Ca-36 and PCC-Ca-6 measures may be used for surveillance, intervention research, and quality improvement initiatives., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The objective was to test the feasibility and acceptability of a computerized tool, Smart Choices, designed to enhance the quality of contraceptive counseling in family planning clinics. The tool includes (a) a questionnaire completed by patients and summarized in a printout for providers and (b) a birth control guide patients explore to learn about various contraceptive methods., Study Design: In 2 family planning clinics, we conducted interviews with 125 women who used the Smart Choices computerized tool and 7 providers., Results: Smart Choices integrated into clinic flow well in one clinic, but less well in the other, which had very short waiting times. Patients were generally enthusiastic about Smart Choices, including its helpfulness in preparing them and their providers for the counseling session and increasing their knowledge of contraceptive methods. Providers varied in how much they used the printout and in their opinions about its usefulness. Some felt its usefulness was limited because it overlapped with the clinic's intake forms or because it did not match with their concept of counseling needs. Others felt it provided valuable information not collected by intake forms and more honest information. Some found Smart Choices to be most helpful with patients who were unsure what method they wanted., Conclusions: Smart Choices is feasible to implement and well received by patients, but modifications are needed to increase provider enthusiasm for this tool., Implications: The Smart Choices tool requires refinement before widespread dissemination., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)