Search

Objective: Cancer treatment misinformation (CTM) is pervasive and impacts patient health outcomes. Cancer clinicians play an essential role in addressing CTM. We previously identified four self-reported responses that characterize the communication process clinicians engage in to address CTM. Clinicians 1) work to understand the misinformation; 2) correct the misinformation through education; 3) advise about future online searches; and 4) preserve the clinician-patient relationship. We sought to confirm and expand on the model we developed by observing cancer clinicians' communication while addressing CTM with a standardized patient (SP). Methods: 17 cancer clinicians were audio recorded in a SP encounter, in which a breast cancer SP asked three questions based on CTM. We thematically analyzed transcriptions of the recordings. Results: Clinicians used four responses with associated strategies and skills to address CTM in a standardized clinical encounter, confirming the previously developed model. The four responses were: (1) work to understand the misinformation; (2) correct the misinformation through education; (3) advise about future online searches; and (4) preserve the clinician-patient relationship. This observational approach allowed us to refine strategies within each response and identify communication skills clinicians enact to address CTM. Conclusion: These findings provide a strong foundation for the Misinformation Response Model for cancer clinicians. Future research should examine which components of the model are most effective in improving patient outcomes. Innovation: This is the first study observing clinicians' communication through simulated practice with SPs about CTM.

BackgroundAdult child caregivers of parents with cancer may face challenges when communicating with the patient and other family members, communicating during clinical interactions, and navigating web-based information seeking. ObjectiveWe developed and pilot-tested the Healthy Communication Practice program for adult child caregivers of parents with a blood cancer, which aims to help participants learn and implement communication skills central to caregiving. We assessed the feasibility and acceptability of the training. MethodsEligible participants completed a preprogram survey. We assessed the feasibility of participants completing the intervention in the allotted time. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the 2-part, 90-minute online program and completed a postprogram survey that included program evaluation items and the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) using a 1-5 rating scale (5=strongly agree). ResultsOf 50 caregivers who initially expressed interest, 34 consented, and 30 completed the program and both surveys (88% completion rate). Caregivers had a mean age of 45.07 (SD 11.96) years and provided care for parents who had a mean age of 73.31 (SD 9.38) years. Caregivers were primarily daughters (n=22, 73%). Overall, scores on the AIM scale were high (mean 4.48, SD 0.67). Specifically, caregivers felt the content met their communication needs (mean 4.58, SD 0.62) and their own needs as a caregiver of a parent with a blood cancer (mean 4.39, SD 0.72). ConclusionsWe demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of the Healthy Communication Practice program, which aims to enhance family and clinical communication skills among caregivers of a parent with a blood cancer. Future studies will examine the efficacy of the program and its impact on both caregiver and patient communication and health outcomes.