Search

Aims and Objectives: Studies in adult medicine have shown that physicians base testing decisions on the patient's clinical condition but also consider other factors, including local practice or patient expectations. In pediatrics, physicians and parents jointly decide on behalf of a (young) child. This might demand more explicit and more complex deliberations, with sometimes conflicting interests. We explored pediatricians' considerations in diagnostic test ordering and the factors that influence their deliberation. Method: We performed in-depth, semistructured interviews with a purposively selected heterogeneous sample of 20 Dutch pediatricians. We analyzed transcribed interviews inductively using a constant comparative approach, and clustered data across interviews to derive common themes. Results: Pediatricians perceived test-related burden in children higher compared with adults, and reported that avoiding an unjustified burden causes them to be more restrictive and deliberate in test ordering. They felt conflicted when parents desired testing or when guidelines recommended diagnostic tests pediatricians perceived as unnecessary. When parents demanded testing, they would explore parental concern, educate parents about harms and alternative explanations of symptoms, and advocate watchful waiting. Yet they reported sometimes performing tests to appease parents or to comply with guidelines, because of feared personal consequences in the case of adverse outcomes. Conclusion: We obtained an overview of the considerations that are weighed in pediatric test decisions. The comparatively strong focus on prevention of harm motivates pediatricians to critically appraise the added value of testing and drivers of low-value testing. Pediatricians' relatively restrictive approach to testing could provide an example for other disciplines. Improved guidelines and physician and patient education could help to withstand the perceived pressure to test.

Objective: To describe young adult childhood cancer survivors' disclosure of their cancer history (i.e., disclosure behavior, difficulty, and timing), perceived partner responses, and associations with relationship status satisfaction. Methods: German long-term survivors of childhood cancer (N = 509; response rate: 31.3%, age 21–26, 59.7% female) completed a registry-based nationwide survey (embedded mixed methods design, including closed and open-ended questions) on measures about disclosure history (behavior, difficulty, and timing), partner responses, and relationship status satisfaction. Statistical (χ2-, t-, or F-tests) and qualitative analyses were conducted. Results: Half of all survivors always disclosed their cancer history to romantic partners. Thereby, three themes for considering (non-)disclosure were identified: Survivors' attitudes, having integrated cancer as part of their identity, and anticipated effects on romantic relationships. About 40% indicated having no difficulties with disclosing their cancer history. The timing of disclosure varied, with most survivors disclosing after a few dates. Facilitators of disclosure were the visibility of their former illness (e.g., scars), having trust in a (potential) partner, getting older/mature, and previous positive experiences with disclosure. Few survivors (13.8%) had ever experienced negative responses from dating partners. Yet, those who had negative experiences, found it more difficult to disclose their cancer history. Survivors were overall rather satisfied with their relationship status, with partnered survivors reporting greater satisfaction than singles (Hedge's g = 1.68); and particularly partnered survivors with past positive responses being most satisfied. Conclusions: Young adult childhood cancer survivors appear rather open in disclosing their cancer history to (potential) romantic partners, and few experienced negative responses. Psycho-educational programs may emphasize such findings in helping to prevent fear of disclosure or avoidance of dating and disclosure among survivors.

Objective: Cancer patients may seek a second opinion (SO) driven by reduced trust in their own providers. Their trust may be diminished or reinforced through the SO. This study aimed to assess (1) what proportion of patients seek SOs motivated by lacking trust and how trust changes over time; (2) whether patients’ trust differs by the outcome of the SO (i.e. similar/different opinion); and (3) how communication during the SO affects trust. Design: A longitudinal mixed methods study including self-report assessments before (T0), immediately following (T1), and two months after the SO (T2). SO consultations (N = 62) were audio recorded, and patient-oncologist communication about the referring oncologist was coded. Main outcome measures: Patient-reported motives and their trust in referring oncologists. Results: Reduced trust motivated 21% of patients to seek a SO. Most patients criticised their referring oncologist. Consulting oncologists generally defended their colleagues, but such affirmation was unrelated to patients’ subsequent trust. Over time, trust did not change substantially. Yet, it was restored in patients motivated by impaired trust, and remained low for patients receiving a different medical outcome. Conclusion: Patients need support to more constructively discuss their treatment relationship. Oncologists need support in providing independent SOs without harming trust relations.

Objective Providing a second opinion (SO) in oncology is complex, and communication during SOs remains poorly understood. This study aimed to systematically observe how patients and oncologists communicate about SO-specific topics (i.e., patient motivation, the referring oncologist, treatment transfer/back-referral), and how such communication affects patient satisfaction. Methods A prospective mixed-methods study of cancer patients seeking a SO (N = 69) and consulting oncologists was conducted. Before the SO, patients reported their expected place of future treatment. Following the SO, patients’ and oncologists’ satisfaction was assessed. All SOs were audio-recorded. Absolute and relative duration of SO-specific talk were calculated and specific events (e.g., questions/utterances) were coded (incl. valence, explicitness). Results SOs lasted 19–73 min, of which 3.7% was spent discussing motivations. Oncologists rarely explored patients’ motivations. Talk about referring oncologists (12.5% of consultation) was mostly critical by patients (M = 43.0%), but positive/confirming by consulting oncologists (M = 73.5%). Although 22.2% of patients expected a treatment transfer, this topic (3.3% of consultation time) was rarely explicitly discussed. Patients who were referred back were significantly less satisfied (d = 0.85). Conclusion Patient-provider communication in oncological SOs appears insufficiently aligned. Practice Implications Patients and oncologists need support to explicitly and productively communicate about SO-specific topics and to better manage expectations. Recommendations are provided.

ObjectivesPhysician gaze towards patients is fundamental for medical consultations. Physicians’ use of Electronic Health Records (EHR) affects their gaze towards patients, and may negatively influence this interaction. We aimed to study conversation patterns during gaze shifts of physicians from the patient towards the EHR.MethodsOutpatient consultations (N=8) were eye-tracked. Interactions around physician gaze shifts towards the computer were transcribed.ResultsWe found that physician gaze shifts have different interactional functions, e.g., introducing a topic switch or entering data into the EHR. Furthermore, physicians differ in how they account for their gaze shifts, i.e., both implicitly and explicitly. Third, patients vary in treating the gaze shift as an indication to continue their turn or not.ConclusionsOur results suggest that physician gaze shifts vary in function, in how physicians account for them, and in how they influence the conversation. Future research should take into account distinctions when relating gaze to patient outcomes.Practice implicationsPhysicians may be aware of the interactional context of their gaze behaviour. Patients respond differently to various types of gaze shifts. How physicians handle gaze shifts can therefore have different consequences for the interaction.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Physicians and parents of critically ill neonates and children receiving intensive care have to make decisions on the child’s behalf. Throughout the child’s illness and treatment trajectory, adequately discussing uncertainties with parents is pivotal because this enhances the quality of the decision-making process and may positively affect the child’s and parents’ well-being. We investigated how physicians discuss uncertainty with parents and how this discussion evolves over time during the trajectory. METHODS We asked physicians working in the NICU and PICU of 3 university medical centers to audio record their conversations with parents of critically ill children from the moment doubts arose whether treatment was in the child’s best interests. We qualitatively coded and analyzed the anonymized transcripts, thereby using the software tool MAXQDA 2020. RESULTS Physicians were found to adapt the way they discussed uncertainty with parents to the specific phase of the child’s illness and treatment trajectory. When treatment options were still available, physicians primarily focused on uncertainty related to diagnostic procedures, treatment options, and associated risks and effects. Particularly when the child’s death was imminent, physicians had less “scientific” guidance to offer. They eliminated most uncertainty and primarily addressed practical uncertainties regarding the child’s dying process to offer parents guidance. CONCLUSIONS Our insights may increase physicians’ awareness and enhance their skills in discussing uncertainties with parents tailored to the phase of the child’s illness and treatment trajectory and to parental needs in each specific phase.

Objective Genetic counselors need advanced communication skills, particularly when discussing tests involving massively parallel sequencing. Increasingly, non-genetic healthcare professionals (HCPs) also need to provide genetic counseling. Communication skills training (CST) may equip HCPs with the required communication skills. This scoping review provides an overview of the content, approach, effectiveness and effective features of CSTs aimed at improving genetic and non-genetic HCPs’ communication skills in providing genetic counseling. Methods Following the PRISMA-ScR statement, four databases were searched for articles. Two researchers independently screened titles and abstracts, and extracted data. When applicable, information on effectiveness and effective features of CST was collated. Results Twenty-three articles were included. Sixteen CSTs targeted non-genetic HCPs, five targeted genetic HCPs and two targeted both. Most CSTs addressed multiple communication behaviors and consisted of role play. CSTs were found to be effective for improving HCPs (mainly self-reported) attitudes and skills. Limited evidence on specific effective features of CST was found. Conclusions There is a clear need for evidence on the effectiveness of CST on improving both HCPs’ communication skills in the context of genetic counseling, and patient outcomes, and its specific effective features. Practice implications Clinical practice could benefit from evidence-based CST for genetic and non-genetic HCPs.

Objective Cancer genetic counseling increasingly involves discussing uncertain test results, for example because multiple genes are sequenced simultaneously. This review was performed to provide insight into how counselors’ communication of uncertain test results during genetic counseling for cancer affects counselors and counselees. Methods A systematic mixed studies review was undertaken to review research on the effects of communicating uncertain test results. Four databases were searched using a PICO search strategy. Study findings of articles meeting the inclusion criteria were synthesized narratively. Results Twenty-four articles were included. Uncertain test results encompassed either an inconclusive test result or a variant of unknown significance (VUS). Counselees involved almost exclusively women at risk of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer. None of the articles reported effects on counselor outcomes. Counselee outcomes were categorized as cognitive, affective or behavioral. Interpretation of a VUS was overall reported as difficult, and counselees’ distress and worry were repeatedly found to decrease over time after the discussion of any uncertain test result. For most other outcomes, findings were sparse and/or inconsistent. Conclusion Evidence on effects on counselee outcomes is scant and inconsistent. Future studies are warranted to provide insight into how counselees and counselors are affected. Practice implications Clinical practice could benefit from guidelines on how to address uncertain test results during pre- and posttest genetic consultations.

Eye contact is a fundamental aspect of nonverbal communication and therefore important for understanding human interaction. Eye contact has been the subject of research in many disciplines, including communication sciences, social psychology, and psychiatry, and a variety of techniques have been used to measure it. The choice of measurement method has consequences for research outcomes and their interpretation. To ensure that research findings align with study aims and populations, it is essential that methodological choices are well substantiated. Therefore, to enhance the effective examination of eye contact, we performed a literature review of the methods used to study eye contact. We searched Medline, PsycINFO and Web of Science for empirical peer-reviewed articles published in English that described quantitative studies on human eye contact and included a methodological description. The identified studies (N = 109) used two approaches to assess eye contact: direct, i.e., assessing eye contact while it is occurring, and indirect, i.e., assessing eye contact retrospectively (e.g., from video recordings). Within these categories, eight specific techniques were distinguished. Variation was found regarding the reciprocity of eye contact between two individuals, the involvement of an assessor and the behavior of participants while being studied. Measures not involving the interactors in assessment of eye contact and have a higher spatial and temporal resolution, such as eye tracking, have gained popularity. Our results show wide methodological diversity regarding the measurement of eye contact. Although studies often define eye contact as gaze towards an exact location, this may not do justice to the subjective character of eye contact. The various methodologies have hardly ever been compared, limiting the ability to compare findings between studies. Future studies should take notice of the controversy surrounding eye contact measures.

Background The development of novel diagnostics enables increasingly earlier diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Timely diagnosis may benefit patients by reducing their uncertainty regarding the cause of symptoms, yet does not always provide patients with the desired certainty. Objective To examine, using both quantitative and qualitative methods, uncertainty communicated by memory clinic clinicians in post‐diagnostic testing consultations with patients and their caregivers. Methods First, we identified all uncertainty expressions of 22 clinicians in audiotaped post‐diagnostic testing consultations with 78 patients. Second, we statistically explored relationships between patient/clinician characteristics and uncertainty expressions. Third, the transcribed uncertainty expressions were qualitatively analysed, determining the topic to which they pertained, their source and initiator/elicitor (clinicians/patients/caregivers). Results Within 57/78 (73%) consultations, clinicians expressed in total 115 uncertainties, of which 37% elicited by the patient or caregiver. No apparent relationships were found between patient/clinician characteristics and whether or not, and how often clinicians expressed uncertainty. Uncertainty expressions pertained to ten different topics, most frequently patient's diagnosis and symptom progression. Expressed uncertainty was mostly related to the unpredictability of the future and limits to available knowledge. Discussion and conclusions The majority of clinicians openly discussed the limits of scientific knowledge and diagnostic testing with patients and caregivers in the dementia context. Noticeably, clinicians did not discuss uncertainty in about one quarter of consultations. More evidence is needed on the beneficial and/or harmful effects on patients of discussing uncertainty with them. This knowledge can be used to support clinicians to optimally convey uncertainty and facilitate patients' uncertainty management.

The Video Engagement Scale (VES) is a quality indicator to assess engagement in experimental video-vignette studies, but its measurement properties warrant improvement. Data from previous studies were combined (N = 2676) and split into three subsamples for a stepped analytical approach. We tested construct validity, criterion validity, reliability, and measurement invariance. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) reiterated poor fit of the previously suggested subscales. An alternative 2-factor structure is presented, which was cross-validated and further shortened (VES-sf). Reliability of both subscales (Immersion, Emotional Impact) was very high (alpha > .86). Multi-group CFAs demonstrated partial and complete measurement invariance among male/female and differently educated participants respectively. Invariance between healthy versus ill participants was not established, but CFAs supported the VES-sf structure in both groups separately. To conclude, we provide the VES-sf with sound measurement properties and demonstrated the appropriateness of comparing certain subgroups. Overall, we recommend the VES-sf to assess engagement/ecological validity in video-vignette research.

Objective Experimental vignette designs are used to systematically test the effects of medical communication. We tested the impact of two methodological choices –gender congruence and vignette modality– on analogue patient reported outcomes. Methods In an online experiment using a vignette portraying an oncological bad news consultation, we manipulated (1) gender congruence between the analogue and the vignette patient, and (2) vignette modality, i.e., text, audio, or video. Cancer-naive students acting as analogue patients (N = 209, 22 ± 3 years old, 75% F) were assigned one randomly-selected vignette variant and completed questionnaires. Using 3 × 2 (repeated-measures) ANOVAs, we tested main and interaction effects of gender congruence and modality on self-reported engagement, recall, trust, satisfaction and anxiety. Results We found no main effects of gender congruence or modality on any of the outcomes, nor any interaction effects between modality and congruence. Conclusion Our results indicate that researchers may needlessly create gender-congruent vignettes at considerable cost and effort. Also, the currently assumed superiority of videos over other modalities for experimental vignette-based research may be inaccurate. Practice implications Although further testing in an offline format and among different populations is warranted, decisions regarding gender congruence and modality for future vignette-based studies should be based primarily on their specific aims.

Face gaze is a fundamental non-verbal behaviour and can be assessed using eye-tracking glasses. Methodological guidelines are lacking on which measure to use to determine face gaze. To evaluate face gaze patterns we compared three measures: duration, frequency and dwell time. Furthermore, state of the art face gaze analysis requires time and manual effort. We tested if face gaze patterns in the first 30, 60 and 120 s predict face gaze patterns in the remaining interaction. We performed secondary analyses of mobile eye-tracking data of 16 internal medicine physicians in consultation with 100 of their patients. Duration and frequency of face gaze were unrelated. The lack of association between duration and frequency suggests that research may yield different results depending on which measure of face gaze is used. Dwell time correlates both duration and frequency. Face gaze during the first seconds of the consultations predicted face gaze patterns of the remaining consultation time (R2 0.26 to 0.73). Therefore, face gaze during the first minutes of the consultations can be used to predict face gaze patterns over the complete interaction. Researchers interested to study face gaze may use these findings to make optimal methodological choices.

Pre-test counseling about multigene panel testing involves many uncertainties. Ideally, counselees are informed about uncertainties in a way that enables them to make an informed decision about panel testing. It is presently unknown whether and how uncertainty is discussed during initial cancer genetic counseling. We therefore investigated whether and how counselors discuss and address uncertainty, and the extent of shared decision-making (SDM), and explored associations between counselors’ communication and their characteristics in consultations on panel testing for cancer. For this purpose, consultations of counselors discussing a multigene panel with a simulated patient were videotaped. Simulated patients represented a counselee who had had multiple cancer types, according to a script. Before and afterwards, counselors completed a survey. Counselors’ uncertainty expressions, initiating and the framing of expressions, and their verbal responses to scripted uncertainties of the simulated patient were coded by two researchers independently. Coding was done according to a pre-developed coding scheme using The Observer XT software for observational analysis. Additionally, the degree of SDM was assessed by two observers. Correlation and regression analyses were performed to assess associations of communicated uncertainties, responses and the extent of SDM, with counselors’ background characteristics. In total, twenty-nine counselors, including clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, physician assistants-in-training, residents and interns, participated of whom working experience varied between 0 and 25 years. Counselors expressed uncertainties mainly regarding scientific topics (94%) and on their own initiative (95%). Most expressions were framed directly (77%), e.g. We don’t know, and were emotionally neutral (59%; without a positive/negative value). Counselors mainly responded to uncertainties of the simulated patient by explicitly referring to the uncertainty (69%), without providing space for further disclosure (66%). More experienced counselors provided less space to further disclose uncertainty (p

Objective: Physicians are increasingly expected to share uncertain information, yet there is concern about possible negative effects on patients. How uncertainty is conveyed and by whom may influence patients’ response. We tested the effects of verbally and non-verbally communicating uncertainty by a male vs. female oncologist on patients’ trust and intention to seek a second opinion. Methods: In an experimental video vignettes study conducted in The Netherlands, oncologist communication behavior (verbal vs. non-verbal and high vs. low uncertainty) and gender (male vs. female) were systematically manipulated. Former cancer patients viewed one video variant and reported trust, intention to seek a second opinion, and experience of uncertainty. Results: Non-verbal communication of high uncertainty by the oncologist led to reduced trust (β = -0.72 (SE = 0.15), p < .001) and increased intention to seek a second opinion (β = 0.67 (SE = 0.16), p < .001). These effects were partly explained by patients’ increased experience of uncertainty (β = -0.48 (SE = 0.12), p < .001; and β = 0.34 (SE = 0.09), p < .001 respectively). Neither verbal uncertainty nor oncologists’ gender influenced trust or intention to seek a second opinion. Conclusion: Non-verbal communication of uncertainty by oncologists may affect patient trust and intention to seek a second-opinion more than verbal communication. Practice Implications: Further research to understand and improve oncologists’ non-verbal uncertainty behavior is warranted.

The patient-physician relationship is a critical determinant for patient health outcomes. Verbal and non-verbal communication, such as eye gaze, are vital aspects of this bond. Neurobiological studies indicate that oxytocin may serve as a link between increased eye gaze and social bonding. Therefore, oxytocin signaling could serve as a key factor influencing eye gaze as well as the patient-physician relationship. We aimed to test the effects of oxytocin on gaze to the eyes of the physician and the patient-physician relationship by conducting a randomized placebo-controlled crossover trial in healthy volunteers with intranasally administered oxytocin (24IU, number 2018-004081-34). Eye gaze of sixty-eight male volunteers was studied using eye-tracking. Volunteers engaged in a simulated video call consultation with a physician who provided information about vaccination against the human papilloma virus. Relationship outcomes, including trust, satisfaction and perceived physician communication style, were measured using questionnaires and corrected for possible confounders (social anxiety and attachment orientation). Additional secondary outcome measures were recall of information and pupil diameter and exploratory outcomes were mood and anxiety. Oxytocin did not affect eye tracking parameters of volunteers’ gaze towards the eyes of the physician. Moreover, oxytocin did not affect parameters of bonding between volunteers and the physician, nor other secondary and exploratory outcomes. Bayesian hypothesis testing provided evidence for the absence of effects. These results contradict the notion that oxytocin affects eye gaze patterns or bonding.

Introduction: Uncertainty is omnipresent in cancer care, including the ambiguity of diagnostic tests, efficacy and side effects of treatments, and/or patients' long-term prognosis. During second opinion consultations, uncertainty may be particularly tangible: doubts and uncertainty may drive patients to seek more information and request a second opinion, whereas the second opinion in turn may also affect patients' level of uncertainty. Providers are tasked to clearly discuss all of these uncertainties with patients who may feel overwhelmed by it. The aim of this study was to explore how oncologists communicate about uncertainty during second opinion consultations in medical oncology.Methods: We performed a secondary qualitative analysis of audio-recorded consultations collected in a prospective study among cancer patients (N = 69) who sought a second opinion in medical oncology. We purposively selected 12 audio-recorded second opinion consultations. Any communication about uncertainty by the oncologist was double coded by two researchers and an inductive analytic approach was chosen to allow for novel insights to arise.Results: Seven approaches in which oncologists conveyed or addressed uncertainty were identified: (1) specifying the degree of uncertainty, (2) explaining reasons of uncertainty, (3) providing personalized estimates of uncertainty to patients, (4) downplaying or magnifying uncertainty, (5) reducing or counterbalancing uncertainty, and (6) providing support to facilitate patients in coping with uncertainty. Moreover, oncologists varied in their (7) choice of words/language to convey uncertainty (i.e., “I” vs. “we”; level of explicitness).Discussion: This study identified various approaches of how oncologists communicated uncertain issues during second opinion consultations. These different approaches could affect patients' perception of uncertainty, emotions provoked by it, and possibly even patients' behavior. For example, by minimizing uncertainty, oncologists may (un)consciously steer patients toward specific medical decisions). Future research is needed to examine how these different ways of communicating about uncertainty affect patients. This could also facilitate a discussion about the desirability of certain communication strategies. Eventually, practical and evidence-based guidance needs to be developed for clinicians to optimally inform patients about uncertain issues and support patients in dealing with these.

The assessment of gaze behaviour is essential for understanding the psychology of communication. Mobile eye-tracking glasses are useful to measure gaze behaviour during dynamic interactions. Eye-tracking data can be analysed by using manually annotated areas-of-interest. Computer vision algorithms may alternatively be used to reduce the amount of manual effort, but also the subjectivity and complexity of these analyses. Using additional re-identification (Re-ID) algorithms, different participants in the interaction can be distinguished. The aim of this study was to compare the results of manual annotation of mobile eye-tracking data with the results of a computer vision algorithm. We selected the first minute of seven randomly selected eye-tracking videos of consultations between physicians and patients in a Dutch Internal Medicine out-patient clinic. Three human annotators and a computer vision algorithm annotated mobile eye-tracking data, after which interrater reliability was assessed between the areas-of-interest annotated by the annotators and the computer vision algorithm. Additionally, we explored interrater reliability when using lengthy videos and different area-of-interest shapes. In total, we analysed more than 65 min of eye-tracking videos manually and with the algorithm. Overall, the absolute normalized difference between the manual and the algorithm annotations of face-gaze was less than 2%. Our results show high interrater agreements between human annotators and the algorithm with Cohen’s kappa ranging from 0.85 to 0.98. We conclude that computer vision algorithms produce comparable results to those of human annotators. Analyses by the algorithm are not subject to annotator fatigue or subjectivity and can therefore advance eye-tracking analyses.

Uncertainty is increasingly discussed during genetic counseling due to innovative techniques, e.g., multigene panel testing. Discussions about uncertainty may impact counselees variably, depending on counselors’ communication styles. Ideally, the discussion of uncertainty enables counselees to cope with uncertainty and make well-informed decisions about testing. We examined the impact of how counselors convey uncertainty and address counselees’ uncertainty, and explored the role of individual characteristics. Therefore, a randomized controlled experiment using videos was conducted. Former counselees (N = 224) viewed one video depicting a genetic consultation about multigene panel testing. The extent of counselors’ communication of uncertainty (comprehensive vs. the essence) and their response to counselees’ uncertainty expressions (providing information vs. providing space for emotions vs. normalizing and counterbalancing uncertainty) were systematically manipulated. Individual characteristics, e.g., uncertainty tolerance, were assessed, as well as outcome variables (primary outcomes: feelings of uncertainty and information recall). No effects were found on primary outcomes. Participants were most satisfied when the essence was communicated, combined with providing information or providing space responses (p = 0.002). Comprehensive information resulted in less perceived steering toward testing (p = 0.005). Participants with lower uncertainty tolerance or higher trait anxiety were less confident about their understanding when receiving comprehensive information (p = 0.025). Participants seeking information experienced less uncertainty (p = 0.003), and trusted their counselor more (p = 0.028), when the counselor used information providing responses. In sum, the impact of discussing uncertainty primarily depends on individual characteristics. Practical guidelines should address how to tailor the discussion of uncertainty.

Objective To examine breast cancer patients’ reasons to seek a second opinion (SO) and the underlying variables. To find out more about the outcome of the SO, the perceived helpfulness and the effect on the physician-patient relationship. Methods In 2017, 4626 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients from 86 hospitals in Germany completed a postoperative mail survey (response rate = 89.04%). Data from 419 SO-seeking patients was obtained and analyzed by conducting logistic regression and non-parametric group comparisons. Results Reasons to seek an SO were mostly unrelated to the physician-patient relationship. Reasons related to the physician-patient-relationship were associated with a lower education level. The SO mostly (72.2%) equaled the first opinion. A different treatment plan recommendation (25%) reportedly affected the patients’ relationship with their primary physician. Patients who received a different diagnosis reported more fear of progression. Most patients found the SO helpful. Conclusion The reasons to seek an SO are primarily unrelated to the physician-patient relationship. However, less educated patients seem to have different reasons to seek an SO. These reasons were reportedly associated with the physician-patient relationship. Practice implications Physicians may need to explicitly ascertain the patient’s needs within the physician-patient communication to avoid inequalities based on patient education.

Objective: To examine the association between whether physicians discuss the possibility of seeking a second opinion (SO) with patients and the patients' decision to seek an SO. We also investigated the impact of seeking such an opinion on patients' trust in physicians. Methods: Newly diagnosed breast cancer patients were surveyed postoperatively with a mail survey. A patient survey is carried out annually to evaluate the breast cancer centers in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. In 2016, survey data from 4517 patients in 87 hospitals were analyzed. Results: Physicians were more likely to inform patients under the age of 75 years with higher education levels about the possibility of seeking an SO. Our results indicate that requesting another opinion is associated with less trust in the physician. Conclusion: Our results indicate that physicians may selectively inform only a subset of patients about the possibility of seeking an SO. Patients who were informed about such a possibility are more likely to do so. Practice implications: Physicians may need to be careful to avoid inequalities based on the age and education of patients regarding giving information about the possibility of an SO. Moreover, breast cancer centers could provide material to patients regarding seeking an SO. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

Background People who have cancer increasingly seek second opinions. Yet, we know little about what motivates patients to seek them and how beneficial they are. Uncertainty—experienced by patients or communicated by physician and patient—may be crucial throughout the second opinion process. Objective This study sought to investigate (1) how uncertainty influences men with prostate cancer to seek second opinions and (2) how second opinions may affect these patients’ sense of uncertainty and subsequent experiences with their care. Methods A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was performed. Men with localized or advanced prostate cancer (n=23) were interviewed by telephone about their motivations and experiences with seeking second opinions and the uncertainties they experienced. Analysis was performed using the constant comparative method. Results Patients sought second opinions because they were uncertain about receiving too little or biased information, experienced insufficient support in coming to a treatment decision, or because physicians expressed different levels of uncertainty than they did (“unshared uncertainty”). Uncertainty was reduced by the second opinion process for most patients, whereas for others, it increased or was sustained. This evolution depended on the way uncertainty was addressed during the second opinion consultation. Conclusions Second opinions may be a useful tool for some but not all patients. They should be used judiciously and not be viewed as a solution for current limitations to health-care organization. An important yet challenging task for physicians is to focus less on information per se and more on how to assist patients manage irreducible uncertainty.

Previous findings suggest immigrant patients have lower trust in their physicians, and perceive nonverbal communication differently compared to non-immigrant patients. We tested discrepancies in trust and the impact of non-verbal behavior between immigrants and non-immigrants in The Netherlands. Nonverbal communication of an oncologist was systematically varied in an experimental video vignettes design. Breast cancer patients (n = 34) and healthy women (n = 34) viewed one of eight video versions and evaluated trust and perceived friendliness of the oncologist. In a matched control design, women with immigrant and non-immigrant backgrounds were paired. Immigrant women reported stronger trust. Nonverbal communication by the oncologist did not influence trust differently for immigrants compared to for non-immigrants. However, smiling strongly enhanced perceived friendliness for non-immigrants, but not for immigrants. Immigrant patients’ strong trust levels may be formed a priori, instead of based on physicians’ communication. Physicians may need to make extra efforts to optimize their communication. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10903-017-0580-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

PurposeThe original 18-item, four-dimensional Trust in Oncologist Scale assesses cancer patients’ trust in their oncologist. The current aim was to develop and validate a short form version of the scale to enable more efficient assessment of cancer patients’ trust.MethodsExisting validation data of the full-length Trust in Oncologist Scale were used to create a short form of the Trust in Oncologist Scale. The resulting short form was validated in a new sample of cancer patients (n = 92). Socio-demographics, medical characteristics, trust in the oncologist, satisfaction with communication, trust in healthcare, willingness to recommend the oncologist to others and to contact the oncologist in case of questions were assessed. Internal consistency, reliability, convergent and structural validity were tested.ResultsThe five-item Trust in Oncologist Scale Short Form was created by selecting the statistically best performing item from each dimension of the original scale, to ensure content validity. Mean trust in the oncologist was high in the validation sample (response rate 86%, M = 4.30, SD = 0.98). Exploratory factor analyses supported one-dimensionality of the short form. Internal consistency was high, and temporal stability was moderate. Initial convergent validity was suggested by moderate correlations between trust scores with associated constructs.ConclusionsThe Trust in Oncologist Scale Short Form appears to efficiently, reliably and validly measures cancer patients’ trust in their oncologist. It may be used in research and as a quality indicator in clinical practice. More thorough validation of the scale is recommended to confirm this initial evidence of its validity.

Background. Adjuvant systemic treatment for early stage breast cancer significantly reduces the risk of mortality but is associated with side effects, reducing patients’ quality of life. Decisions about adjuvant treatment are preference sensitive and are thus ideally suited to a shared decision making (SDM) approach. Whether and how SDM affects patients’ trust in their oncologist is currently unknown. We investigated the association between patients’ trust in their oncologist and 1) observed level of SDM in the consultation, 2) congruence between patients’ preferred and perceived level of participation, and 3) patient and oncologist characteristics. Methods. Decision consultations ( n = 101) between breast cancer patients and their medical oncologist were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Patients’ trust in their oncologist was measured using the Trust in Oncologist Scale (TiOS). The observed level of SDM was scored using the 12-item Observing Patient Involvement In Decision Making scale (OPTION-12), preferred level of participation with the Control Preferences Scale, and perceived level of participation with an open question in telephonic interviews. Results. The average TiOS score was high overall (mean [SD] = 4.1 [.56]; range, 2.6–5.0). Low levels of SDM were observed (mean [SD] = 16 [11.6]; range, 2–56). Neither observed nor perceived level of participation in SDM was associated with trust. Patients’ preferred and perceived role in decision making was incongruent in almost 50% of treatment decisions. Congruence was not related to trust. A larger tumor size (β = 4.5, P = 0.03) and the use of a risk prediction model during the consultation (β = 4.1, P = 0.04) were associated with stronger trust. Conclusion. Patients reported strong trust in their oncologist. While low levels of SDM were observed, SDM was not associated with trust. These findings suggest it may not be necessary to worry about negative consequences for trust of using SDM or risk prediction models in oncological consultations. Considering the increased emphasis on implementing SDM, it is important to further explore how SDM affects trust in clinical practice.

Accepted manuscript version, licensed CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Objective - To promote a more systematic approach to research on uncertainty in health care, and to explore promising starting points and future directions for this research. Methods - We examine three fundamental aspects of medical uncertainty that a systematic research program should ideally address: its nature, effects, and communication. We summarize key insights from past empirical research and explore existing conceptual models that can help guide future research. Results - A diverse body of past research on medical uncertainty has produced valuable empirical insights and conceptual models that provide useful starting points for future empirical and theoretical work. However, these insights need to be more fully developed and integrated to answer remaining questions about what uncertainty is, how it affects people, and how and why it should be communicated. Conclusion - Uncertainty in health care is an extremely important but incompletely understood phenomenon. Improving our understanding of the many important aspects of uncertainty in health care will require a more systematic program of research based upon shared, integrative conceptual models and active, collaborative engagement of the broader research community. Practice Implications - A more systematic approach to investigating uncertainty in health care can help elucidate how the clinical communication of uncertainty might be improved.

Multigene panel testing is mainly used to improve identification of genetic causes in families with characteristics fitting multiple possible cancer syndromes. This technique may yield uncertainty, for example when variants of unknown significance are identified. This study explores counsellors’ and counselees’ experiences with uncertainty, and how they discuss uncertainties and decide about multigene panel testing. Six focus groups were conducted including 38 counsellors. Twelve counselees who had received genetic counselling about a multigene panel test were interviewed. The focus group sessions and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed inductively by two independent coders and data were examined to obtain a comprehensive list of themes. Counsellors identified several uncertainties, e.g. finding a variant of unknown significance, or detecting an unsolicited finding. Most difficulty was experienced in deciding what uncertain information to communicate to counselees and how to do so. The extent and manner of providing uncertain information differed between centres and between counsellors. Counsellors attached more value to counselees’ preferences in decision making compared to less extended tests. Counselees experienced difficulty in recalling which uncertainties had been discussed during genetic counselling. They primarily reported to have experienced uncertainty about their own and their relatives’ risk of developing cancer. Counselees felt they had had a say in the decision. This study showed that counsellors need more guidance on whether and how to convey uncertainty. Undesirable practice variation in the communication of uncertainty may be prevented by determining what information should minimally be discussed to enable informed decision making.

Prognostic communication is essential for patients with advanced cancer to enable informed medical decision-making and end-of-life planning. Discussing prognosis is challenging, and might be especially complex for oncologists conducting a second opinion (SO). Survival data are often lacking, and consulting oncologists need to consider previously conveyed information and patients’ relationship with the referring oncologist. We qualitatively investigated how advanced cancer patients and consulting oncologists discuss prognosis during audio-recorded SO consultations (N = 60), including prognostic information received from the referring oncologist. Our results show that patients regularly expressed implicit cues to discuss prognosis or posed explicit questions tentatively. Consulting oncologists were mostly unresponsive to patients’ cues and cautious to prognosticate. They also seemed cautious when patients brought up the referring oncologist. Consulting oncologists checked which prognostic information patients had received from the referring oncologist, before estimating prognosis. They agreed with the first opinion or rectified discrepancies carefully. Altogether, this study exposes missed opportunities for open prognostic discussions in SOs. Consulting oncologists could explicitly explore patients’ information preferences and perceptions of prognosis. If desired, they can provide tailored, independent information to optimise patients’ prognostic awareness and informed medical decision-making. They may additionally support patients in dealing with prognosis and the uncertainties associated with it.

Background Although patient-driven second opinions are increasingly sought in oncology, the desirability of this trend remains unknown. Therefore, this systematic review assesses evidence on the motivation for and frequency of requests for second opinions and examines how they evolve and their consequences for oncological practice. Materials and methods Relevant databases were sought using the terms "cancer," "second opinion," and "self-initiated." Included were peer-reviewed articles that reported on patient-initiated second opinions within oncology. Selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed and discussed by two researchers. Results Of the 25 included studies, the methodological designs were qualitative (n = 4), mixed (n = 1), or quantitative (n = 20). Study quality was rated high for 10 studies, moderate for eight, and low for seven studies. Reported rates of second opinion seeking ranged from 1%-88%. Higher education was most consistently related to seeking a second opinion. Patients' primary motivations were a perceived need for certainty or confirmation, a lack of trust, dissatisfaction with communication, and/or a need for more (personalized) information. Reported rates of diagnostic or therapeutic discrepancies between the first and second opinions ranged from 2%-51%. Discussion Additional studies are required to further examine the medical, practical, and psychological consequences of second opinions for patients and oncologists. Future studies could compare the potential advantages and disadvantages of second opinion seeking, and might offer guidance to patients and physicians to better facilitate the second opinion process. Some practical recommendations are provided for oncologists to optimally discuss and conduct second opinions with their patients. The Oncologist 2017;22:1197-1211 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Although cancer patients increasingly seek a second opinion, the benefits of this process remain unclear. Results of this systematic review suggest that the available studies on this topic are highly variable in both methodology and quality. Moreover, reported rates for a second opinion (1%-88%) as well as for disagreement between the first and second opinion (2%-51%) range widely. The primary motivations of patients are a need for certainty, lack of trust, dissatisfaction with communication, and/or a need for more (personalized) information. Additional research should evaluate how unnecessary second opinions might be avoided. Practical suggestions are provided for oncologists to optimize second opinions.

ObjectivesIn health communication research using video vignettes, it is important to assess viewers’ engagement. Engagement scores can indicate ecological validity of the design, and help distinguish between different engagement types. Therefore, we aimed to develop and validate a scale assessing viewers’ engagement with video vignettes.MethodsBased on an existing question set, the 15-item, five-dimensional Video Engagement Scale (VES) was developed. The VES was validated in two video-vignettes studies to investigate patient-physician communication. In addition to engagement, we assessed its presumed correlates, e.g., perceived realism of the video and identification with the patient.ResultsInternal consistency and test–retest reliability were adequate in both studies (N = 181 and N = 228). Positive correlations between the VES and perceived realism of the video, credibility of and identification with the patient suggested good content validity. Confirmatory factor analysis suggested a four-dimensional model fit, largely resembling our hypothesized model.ConclusionsThe VES reliably and validly measures viewers’ engagement in health communication research using video vignettes. It can be employed to assess ecological validity of this design. Further testing of the scale is needed to more solidly establish its dimensionality.Practice ImplicationsWe recommend that researchers use the VES, to ensure ecological validity of future video-vignettes studies.

To explore motives and experiences of patients with incurable cancer who are looking across the border for second opinions or treatments or are considering to do so.Qualitative, semi-structured interview study.A total of 24 patients with incurable cancer from two Dutch hospitals were interviewed by phone. All interviews were coded independently by two researchers and then analysed inductively, without any pre-specified theoretical framework.Patients were looking for second opinions or treatments because they found it very difficult to accept a sudden diagnosis of incurable disease. They experienced little guidance during this transition. Patients felt they were not offered any treatment options because of imperative protocols. Many patients were in great need of some form of hope. There were often high expectations - unrealistic or not - of the possibilities abroad. Oncologists' reactions to patients' choices were very diverse. While disapproving reactions were unable to influence patients' choices, well-substantiated arguments were sometimes successful in influencing patients' choices.More guidance seems advisable for some patients to help them deal with a diagnosis of incurable disease. Dutch oncologists might be able to offer alternative forms of hope to these patients, who have a great need for this. If physicians speak with patients about what a treatment abroad may or may not be able to provide, this might benefit patients.

Objective Persons seeking cancer genetic counseling mainly aim to obtain information and certainty about their medical situation. However, the information that counselees receive often involves many uncertainties. To develop strategies to enable optimal communication about uncertainties, the spectrum of uncertainty expressed within cancer genetic counseling needs to be established. This study aimed to gain insight into the uncertainties verbally expressed by counselors and counselees. Methods Twenty-five consultations were audiotaped, transcribed and qualitatively analyzed. A coding scheme identifying all uncertainties was developed parallel to the coding of the transcripts. Results Several uncertainties were identified varying in their source (i.e. the cause of uncertainty) and the issues involved (i.e. the topic to which uncertainty pertained). The main sources of uncertainty were the unpredictability of the future and a lack of knowledge. Counselees also expressed uncertainty related to the amount and complexity of the information. Counselors expressed uncertainties mainly related to scientific issues, whereas counselees’ uncertainty mainly related to personal and practical issues. Conclusion A wide range of uncertainties was expressed by both groups. Counselors differ from counselees in the degree and types of uncertainty they express. Practice implications Counselors should address scientific uncertainties during genetic counseling to increase awareness and understanding in counselees.

Objective To examine the relationship between physicians’ death anxiety and medical communication and decision-making. It was hypothesized that physicians’ death anxiety may lead to the avoidance of end-of-life conversations and a preference for life-prolonging treatments. Methods PubMed and PsycInfo were systematically searched for empirical studies on the relation between physicians’ death anxiety and medical communication and decision-making. Results This review included five quantitative and two qualitative studies (N = 7). Over 38 relations between death anxiety and communication were investigated, five were in line with and one contradicted our hypothesis. Physicians’ death anxiety seemes to make end-of-life communication more difficult. Over 40 relations between death anxiety and decision-making were investigated, three were in line with and two contradicted the hypothesis. Death anxiety seemes related to physicians’ guilt or doubt after a patient’s death. Conclusions There was insufficient evidence to confirm that death anxiety is related to more avoidant communication or decision-making. However, death anxiety does seem to make end-of-life communication and decision-making more difficult for physicians. Practice implications Education focused on death and dying and physicians’ emotions in medical practice may improve the perceived ease with which physicians care for patients at the end of life.

Background Video vignettes are used to test the effects of physicians’ communication on patient outcomes. Methodological choices in video-vignette development may have far-stretching consequences for participants’ engagement with the video, and thus the ecological validity of this design. To supplement the scant evidence in this field, this study tested how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence participants’ engagement with a video vignette showing a bad news consultation. Methods Introduction format (A = audiovisual vs. B = written) and camera focus (1 = the physician only, 2 = the physician and the patient at neutral moments alternately, 3 = the physician and the patient at emotional moments alternately) were varied in a randomized 2 × 3 between-subjects design. One hundred eighty-one students were randomly assigned to watch one of the six resulting video-vignette conditions as so-called analogue patients, i.e., they were instructed to imagine themselves being in the video patient’s situation. Four dimensions of self-reported engagement were assessed retrospectively. Emotional engagement was additionally measured by recording participants’ electrodermal and cardiovascular activity continuously while watching. Analyses of variance were used to test the effects of introduction format, camera focus and their interaction. Results The audiovisual introduction induced a stronger blood pressure response during watching the introduction (p = 0.048, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$\end{document}ηpartial2= 0.05) and the consultation part of the vignette (p = 0.051, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$\end{document}ηpartial2= 0.05), when compared to the written introduction. With respect to camera focus, results revealed that the variant focusing on the patient at emotional moments evoked a higher level of electrodermal activity (p = 0.003, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$\end{document}ηpartial2= 0.06), when compared to the other two variants. Furthermore, an interaction effect was shown on self-reported emotional engagement (p = 0.045, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$\end{document}ηpartial2= 0.04): the physician-only variant resulted in lower emotional engagement if the vignette was preceded by the audiovisual introduction. No effects were shown on the other dimensions of self-reported engagement. Conclusions Our findings imply that using an audiovisual introduction combined with alternating camera focus depicting patient’s emotions results in the highest levels of emotional engagement in analogue patients. This evidence can inform methodological decisions during the development of video vignettes, and thereby enhance the ecological validity of future video-vignettes studies.

Objective: Cancer patients need to trust their oncologist. How the oncologist communicates probably contributes to patients' trust. Yet, patient characteristics such as their attachment style and health locus of control may influence how such communication is perceived. We examined how these personality characteristics influence trust as well as moderate the relation between oncologist communication and trust.Methods: Eight videotaped scenarios of an oncologic consultation were created. Oncologist communication was systematically varied regarding their expressed competence, honesty and caring. Cancer patients (n = 345) were randomly assigned to view the videos and report their trust in the observed oncologist. Patients' self-reported attachment style, health locus of control and trust in their own oncologist were assessed.Results: Patients with a stronger external health locus of control trusted the observed oncologist more (p < .001). Neither attachment avoidance nor attachment anxiety was related to trust in the observed oncologist. However, attachment avoidance moderated the positive effect of the oncologists' communication of caring and honesty on trust: avoidant attachment significantly diminished the effect (p < .011 and p < .044, respectively). High attachment avoidance (p = .003) and attachment anxiety (p < .001) were related to weaker trust in patients' own oncologist.Discussion: Patients' attachment avoidance may hamper their trust in their own, but not necessarily in a newly observed, oncologist. As expected, patients' attachment style influences how oncologist communication influences trust, underscoring the importance of oncologists tailoring their communication to individual patients. We confirmed observational findings that patients convinced that others control their health trust their oncologist more than others.

Objective: Cancer patients need information provision to cope with their disease. However, only 20-60% of information provided during consultations is remembered. This study aimed to investigate whether oncologists' use of trust-conveying communication, characterized by communicating competence, honesty and caring, enhances patients' memory. Moreover, we aimed to investigate if this hypothetical relationship is mediated by a reduction in psychophysiological arousal during the consultation. Methods: An experimental design was used, allowing for conclusion about causality. Two versions of a scripted video-taped consultation were used in which the oncologist adopted either a standard or a trustconveying communication style. 97 cancer-naive individuals acted as analogue patients and were randomly assigned to watch one of the consultations. Results: Free recall, assessed 24-28 h after viewing, was higher (p = 0.039) in the trust-conveying condition (65.3% versus 59.5%). Recognition did not differ (p = 0.502). Psychophysiological assessment during watching showed a smaller heart rate response in the trust-conveying condition (p = 0.037). No mediation effect nor an effect on electrodermal activity was found. Conclusion: These results suggest that oncologists' use of trust-conveying communication could increase patients' free recall of information and diminish their cardiovascular response. Practice implications: The underlying mechanisms by which oncologists' communication influences information recall warrants further investigation. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

Objective Scripted video-vignette studies enable experimental investigation of specific elements of patient–provider communication, separating cause and effect. However, scripted video vignettes are infrequently used to this end. Resultantly, few guidelines are available for their design, development and administration. We aim to suggest guidelines enabling more informed decisions when designing and conducting these studies. Methods Based on the available methodological literature, we discuss methodological considerations when developing and administering scripted video vignettes. Results Developing and using valid video vignettes requires: (I) deciding if using video vignettes is appropriate, (II) developing a valid script, (III) designing valid manipulations, (IV) converting the scripted consultation to video, and (V) administering the videos. We provide a first checklist of the methodological considerations in each phase. Advantages and pitfalls of possible approaches are discussed. Conclusions No ‘gold standard’ exists for most methodological issues, as literature testing the consequences of different approaches is lacking. The best approach when developing and implementing video vignettes depends upon the aims and practical limitations of a particular study. Practice implications Our checklist may serve as a starting point for further study of scripted video vignettes methodology. More detailed methodological reporting would yield new knowledge, thus allowing the research field to progress.

Rationale: Uncertainty tolerance (UT) is an important, well-studied phenomenon in health care and many other important domains of life, yet its conceptualization and measurement by researchers in various disciplines have varied substantially and its essential nature remains unclear. Objective: The objectives of this study were to: 1) analyze the meaning and logical coherence of UT as conceptualized by developers of UT measures, and 2) develop an integrative conceptual model to guide future empirical research regarding the nature, causes, and effects of UT. Methods: A narrative review and conceptual analysis of 18 existing measures of Uncertainty and Ambiguity Tolerance was conducted, focusing on how measure developers in various fields have defined both the "uncertainty" and "tolerance" components of UT both explicitly through their writings and implicitly through the items constituting their measures. Results: Both explicit and implicit conceptual definitions of uncertainty and tolerance vary substantially and are often poorly and inconsistently specified. A logically coherent, unified understanding or theoretical model of UT is lacking. To address these gaps, we propose a new integrative definition and multidimensional conceptual model that construes UT as the set of negative and positive psychological responses-cognitive, emotional, and behavioral-provoked by the conscious awareness of ignorance about particular aspects of the world. This model synthesizes insights from various disciplines and provides an organizing framework for future research. We discuss how this model can facilitate further empirical and theoretical research to better measure and understand the nature, determinants, and outcomes of UT in health care and other domains of life. Conclusion: Uncertainty tolerance is an important and complex phenomenon requiring more precise and consistent definition. An integrative definition and conceptual model, intended as a tentative and flexible point of departure for future research, adds needed breadth, specificity, and precision to efforts to conceptualize and measure UT. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd

This analysis of interviews with Dutch oncologists investigates the outcomes of second-opinion requests for physician-patient and physician-colleague relationships. ispartof: JAMA ONCOLOGY vol:4 issue:10 pages:1425-1426 ispartof: location:United States status: published

Purpose The aim of this study was to develop and validate the Trust in Oncologist Scale (TiOS), which aims to measure cancer patients' trust in their oncologist. Structure, reliability and validity were examined. Methods Construction of the TiOS was based on a multidimensional theoretical framework. Cancer patients were surveyed within a week after their consultation. Trust, satisfaction, trust in health care, self-reported health and background variables were assessed. Dimensionality, internal consistency, test–retest reliability and construct validity were investigated. Results Data of 423 patients were included (response rate = 65%). After item reduction, the TiOS included 18 items. Trust scores were high. Exploratory factor analysis suggested one-dimensionality. Confirmatory factor analysis nevertheless indicated a reasonable fit of our four-dimensional theoretical model, distinguishing competence, fidelity, honesty and caring. Internal consistency and test–retest reliabilities were high. Good construct validity was indicated by moderate correlations of trust (TiOS) with satisfaction, trust in health care, willingness to recommend and number of consultations with the oncologist. Exploratory analyses suggested significant correlations of trust with ethnicity and age. Conclusions The TiOS reliably and validly assesses cancer patients' trust in their oncologist. The questionnaire can be employed in both clinical practice and future research of cancer patients' trust.

Objective: Patient's trust in their physician is crucial for desirable treatment outcomes such as satisfaction and adherence. In oncology, trust is possibly even more essential, due to the life-threatening nature of cancer. A review was undertaken of the current knowledge of the conceptualization, assessment, correlates, and consequences of cancer patients' trust in their physician. Methods: The empirical literature published in peer-reviewed journals between October 1988 and October 2008 was searched, employing all combinations and variations of the following keywords: trust, physician-patient relations, and cancer. Results: The search identified 45 relevant papers, only 11 of which drew attention to the conceptualization of trust, and 5 of which focused on trust as the primary subject of interest. Trust in physicians was strong overall. Patients' trust appeared to be enhanced by the physician's perceived technical competence, honesty, and patient-centred behaviour. A trusting relationship between patient and physician resulted in facilitated communication and medical decision making, a decrease of patient fear, and better treatment adherence. Conclusions: A lack of focus on trust and the conceptualization thereof, strong methodological variations between studies and a possible publication bias lead us to conclude that cancer patients' trust in their physician deserves more systematic, theoretically based, research attention. Consequently, studies are needed aimed at gaining a thorough understanding of the nature and impact of cancer patients' trust in their physician, and how the interaction between physician and patient may contribute to such trust. Copyright (C) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd