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.

Objectives Only 5–8% of adults with cancer participate in cancer clinical trials (CCTs), with even lower rates among underrepresented groups. Improving oncologists’ communication skills may enhance the frequency and quality of their discussions with patients about CCTs, consequently increasing participation. However, little is known about interest in or presence of CCT-related communication training during Hematology-Oncology (Hem-Onc) fellowships. This study aimed to describe, from the perspective of Hem-Onc fellowship program directors (PDs): (1) the current landscape of CCT education for Hem-Onc fellows; (2) the acceptability and feasibility of implementing a CCT communication skills workshop for Hem-Onc fellows. Methods We used an explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach. PDs were surveyed and interviewed about their graduate medical education (GME) programs’ current CCT curriculum, training challenges, fellows’ CCT knowledge and CCT communication skills, and preferences for a CCT communication workshop. Results PDs were surveyed (n = 40) and interviewed (n = 12). PDs reported that their institutions prioritize CCT accrual (M = 4.58, SD = .78; 1-5 scale, 5 = “Strongly Agree”) and clinical research training (M = 4.20, SD = .85). CCT skills that programs least often addressed were how to (1) discuss CCTs with newly diagnosed patients, (2) talk to patients about CCTs when none are available, and (3) help patients find CCTs at other institutions. PDs were interested in a CCT communication workshop for fellows (“yes” = 67.5%, “maybe” = 32.5%) and said training would be feasible (M = 4.28, SD = .78) and useful (M = 4.47, SD = .78). Qualitative results described programs’ current approaches to CCT education and insights about developing and implementing CCT communication training. Conclusions There is a clear need to improve CCT communication skills training in Hem-Onc fellowship programs and to implement and scale such training to increase CCT participation, especially among diverse patient populations. Furthermore, Hem-Onc GME PDs view such training as feasible and useful.