A randomized intervention involving family to improve communication in breast cancer care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wolff JL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7881185 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A randomized intervention involving family to improve communication in breast cancer care.
Wolff Jennifer L JL Aufill Jennifer J Echavarria Diane D Blackford Amanda L AL Connolly Roisin M RM Fetting John H JH Jelovac Danijela D Papathakis Katie K Riley Carol C Stearns Vered V Zafman Nelli N Thorner Elissa E Levy Howard P HP Guo Amy A Dy Sydney M SM Wolff Antonio C AC
NPJ breast cancer 20210212 1
We examined the effects of a communication intervention to engage family care partners on patient portal (MyChart) use, illness understanding, satisfaction with cancer care, and symptoms of anxiety in a single-blind randomized trial of patients in treatment for breast cancer. Patient-family dyads were recruited and randomly assigned a self-administered checklist to clarify the care partner role, establish a shared visit agenda, and facilitate MyChart access (n = 63) or usual care (n = 55). Inter ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Knowing family history is important for understanding cancer risk, yet communication within families is suboptimal. Providing strategies to enhance communication may be useful.Four hundred ninety women were recruited from urban, safety-net, hospital-based primary care women's health clinics. Participants were randomized to receive the KinFact intervention or the control handout on lowering risks for breast/colon cancer and screening recommendations. Cancer family history was reviewed with all participants. The 20-minute KinFact intervention, based in communication and behavior theory, included reviewing individualized breast/colon cancer risks and an interactive presentation about cancer and communication. Study outcomes included whether participants reported collecting family history, shared cancer risk information with relatives, and the frequency of communication with relatives. Data were collected at baseline, 1, 6, and 14 months.Overall, intervention participants were significantly more likely to gather family cancer information at follow-up (odds ratio [OR]: 2.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.01, 3.71) and to share familial cancer information with relatives (OR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.37, 2.48). Communication frequency (1=not at all; 4=a lot) was significantly increased at follow-up (1.67 vs. 1.54). Differences were not modified by age, race, education, or family history. However, effects were modified by pregnancy status and genetic literacy. Intervention effects for information gathering and frequency were observed for nonpregnant women but not for pregnant women. Additionally, intervention effects were observed for information gathering in women with high genetic literacy, but not in women with low genetic literacy.The KinFact intervention successfully promoted family communication about cancer risk. Educating women to enhance their communication skills surrounding family history may allow them to partner more effectively with their families and ultimately their providers in discussing risks and prevention.
| S-EPMC4195404 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceCommunication between cardiologists and patients can significantly affect patient comprehension, adherence, and satisfaction. To our knowledge, a coaching intervention to improve cardiologist communication has not been tested.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of a communication coaching intervention to teach evidence-based communication skills to cardiologists.Design, setting, and participantsThis 2-arm randomized clinical trial was performed at outpatient cardiology clinics at an academic medical center and affiliated community clinics, and from February 2019 through March 2020 recruited 40 cardiologists and audio recorded 161 patients in the preintervention phase and 240 in the postintervention phase. Data analysis was performed from March 2022 to January 2023.InterventionsHalf of the cardiologists were randomized to receive a coaching intervention that involved three 1:1 sessions, 2 of which included feedback on their audio-recorded encounters. Communication coaches taught 5 skills derived from motivational interviewing: (1) sitting down and making eye contact with all in the room, (2) open-ended questions, (3) reflective statements, (4) empathic statements, and (5) "What questions do you have?"Main outcomes and measuresCoders unaware of study arm coded these behaviors in the preintervention and postintervention audio-recorded encounters (objective communication). Patients completed a survey after the visit to report perceptions of communication quality (subjective communication).ResultsAnalysis included 40 cardiologists (mean [SD] age, 47 [9] years; 7 female and 33 male) and 240 patients in the postintervention phase (mean [SD] age, 58 [15] years; 122 female, 118 male). When controlling for preintervention behaviors, cardiologists in the intervention vs control arm were more likely to make empathic statements (intervention: 52 of 117 [44%] vs control: 31 of 113 [27%]; P = .05); to ask, "What questions do you have?" (26 of 117 [22%] vs 6 of 113 [5%]; P = .002); and to respond with empathy when patients expressed negative emotions (mean ratio of empathic responses to empathic opportunities, 0.50 vs 0.20; P = .004). These effects did not vary based on patient or cardiologist race or sex. We found no arm differences for open-ended questions or reflective statements and were unable to assess differences in patient ratings due to ceiling effects.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, a communication coaching intervention improved 2 key communication behaviors: expressing empathy and eliciting questions. Empathic communication is a harder-level skill that may improve the patient experience and information comprehension. Future work should explore how best to assess the effect of communication coaching on patient perceptions of care and clinical outcomes and determine its effectiveness in larger, more diverse samples of cardiologists.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03464110.
| S-EPMC10087090 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Family caregivers (FC) often experience higher distress levels than their relative with cancer. Many cancer centers have implemented distress screening programs, but most of them concentrate their efforts on patients, with little attention to their FC. To fill this gap, a pragmatic intervention has been designed to improve supportive care for FC of patients with lung cancer. This article describes the study protocol of a single-center randomized controlled trial to assess its effectiveness.A total of 120 lung cancer patients and their FC are randomly assigned to the experimental group (exposed to intervention, N?=?60) or to the control group (usual care, N?=?60). The intervention includes: (1) systematic FC distress screening and problem assessment near their relative's cancer diagnosis, and every 2 months, (2) privileged contact with an oncology nurse (ON) away from the patient to address FC problems and (3) liaison by the ON with the family physician of FC reporting high distress (thermometer score ?5/10), or problems relying on FP expertise. In both groups, FC, patient and process-of-care outcomes are measured at baseline and every 3 months, up to 9 months. The primary endpoint is FC distress measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Psychological Distress Index used in the Quebec Health Survey (PDQHS). Individual interviews with 10 FC and a focus group with the oncology team will be conducted at the study end to further document the effectiveness of the intervention and its impact on quality of life (for FC) and practice organization (for the oncology team).This trial will assess the effectiveness of an innovative intervention based on interprofessional collaboration between primary care and oncology care. It targets a population in great need, yet often neglected, and has the potential to clearly improve patient and caregiver experience of cancer care, and reduce the burden of disease.ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02531464 . Registered on 15 July 2015.
| S-EPMC5496252 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The intensive care unit (ICU), where death is common and even survivors of an ICU stay face the risk of long-term morbidity and re-admissions to the ICU, represents an important setting for improving communication about palliative and end-of-life care. Communication about the goals of care in this setting should be a high priority since studies suggest that the current quality of ICU communication is often poor and is associated with psychological distress among family members of critically ill patients. This paper describes the development and evaluation of an intervention designed to improve the quality of care in the ICU by improving communication among the ICU team and with family members of critically ill patients. We developed a multi-faceted, interprofessional intervention based on self-efficacy theory. The intervention involves a "communication facilitator" - a nurse or social worker - trained to facilitate communication among the interprofessional ICU team and with the critically ill patient's family. The facilitators are trained using three specific content areas: a) evidence-based approaches to improving clinician-family communication in the ICU, b) attachment theory allowing clinicians to adapt communication to meet individual family member's communication needs, and c) mediation to facilitate identification and resolution of conflict including clinician-family, clinician-clinician, and intra-family conflict. The outcomes assessed in this randomized trial focus on psychological distress among family members including anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder at 3 and 6 months after the ICU stay. This manuscript also reports some of the lessons that we have learned early in this study.
| S-EPMC3823241 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose/Objectives: Family caregivers of individuals living with cancer are often highly involved in communication with healthcare teams, yet little is known about their experiences, needs, and preferences in this role. To address this gap in the knowledge base, researchers sought to explore family caregivers' perspectives on communication with oncology care providers. Design and Methods: Researchers conducted a secondary inductive thematic analysis of qualitative interviews originally collected as part of a randomized clinical trial of a supportive intervention for family caregivers of patients with cancer (N = 63). Participants: Participants were family caregivers of adult patients with cancer. Most were patients' spouses/long-term partners (52.3%) or adult children/grandchildren (29.2%). Caregivers of patients with all cancer types and stages of disease progression were eligible for study enrollment. Findings: Caregivers valued communication with healthcare providers who were attentive, genuine, broadly focused on patients and caregivers' experiences, sensitive to unmet information needs, and responsive to the potentially different communication preferences of patients and caregivers. Interpretation: Family caregivers expressed a strong preference for person-centered communication, conceptualized as communication that helps healthcare providers meet the needs of patients and caregivers both as individuals and as an interdependent unit of care, and that acknowledges individuals' experiences beyond their prescribed roles of "cancer patient" and "caregiver." Implications for Psychosocial Oncology Practice: Psychosocial oncology providers' strong orientation to the biopsychosocial and spiritual aspects of cancer care delivery make them uniquely positioned to support family caregivers. Findings suggest that providers should explicitly communicate their commitment to both patient and family care, involve family caregivers in psychosocial assessment activities and subsequent intervention, and strive to honor patients and caregivers' potentially different communication preferences.
| S-EPMC7350905 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveAdequate physician-patient communication about cancer recurrence is vital to quality of life and to informed decision-making related to survivorship care. The current study was guided by a cognitive-affective framework to examine communication with family and physicians about breast cancer recurrence risk.MethodsA survey of recently-diagnosed, early-stage breast cancer patients in Appalachia investigated physician-patient and familial communication about breast cancer recurrence risk.ResultsOver 30% of participants reported not talking to family or physicians about breast cancer recurrence risk. Younger patients reported more conversations, and speaking with physicians was associated with greater perception risk factors associated with recurrence risk. Greater worry about recurrence was associated with more communication with family and plans to talk to family, physicians, and friends about recurrence risk in the future.ConclusionAdditional supports for patients and physicians are needed to improve understanding of breast cancer recurrence risk and risk factors for recurrence.InnovationFamily communication about breast cancer recurrence risk is understudied. The combination of physician and family communication adds novelty to our analysis.
| S-EPMC10750108 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose of the studyNursing home (NH) residents with dementia exhibit challenging behaviors or resistiveness to care (RTC) that increase staff time, stress, and NH costs. RTC is linked to elderspeak communication. Communication training (Changing Talk [CHAT]) was provided to staff to reduce their use of elderspeak. We hypothesized that CHAT would improve staff communication and subsequently reduce RTC.MethodsThirteen NHs were randomized to intervention and control groups. Dyads (n = 42) including 29 staff and 27 persons with dementia were videorecorded during care before and/or after the intervention and at a 3-month follow-up. Videos were behaviorally coded for (a) staff communication (normal, elderspeak, or silence) and (b) resident behaviors (cooperative or RTC). Linear mixed modeling was used to evaluate training effects.ResultsOn average, elderspeak declined from 34.6% (SD = 18.7) at baseline by 13.6% points (SD = 20.00) post intervention and 12.2% points (SD = 22.0) at 3-month follow-up. RTC declined from 35.7% (SD = 23.2) by 15.3% points (SD = 32.4) post intervention and 13.4% points (SD = 33.7) at 3 months. Linear mixed modeling determined that change in elderspeak was predicted by the intervention (b = -12.20, p = .028) and baseline elderspeak (b = -0.65, p < .001), whereas RTC change was predicted by elderspeak change (b = 0.43, p < .001); baseline RTC (b = -0.58, p < .001); and covariates.ImplicationsA brief intervention can improve communication and reduce RTC, providing an effective nonpharmacological intervention to manage behavior and improve the quality of dementia care. No adverse events occurred.
| S-EPMC5881770 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe rate of adherence to regular colonoscopy screening in individuals at increased familial risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) is suboptimal, especially among rural and other geographically underserved populations. Remote interventions may overcome geographic and system-level barriers. We compared the efficacy of a telehealth-based personalized risk assessment and communication intervention with a mailed educational brochure for improving colonoscopy screening among at-risk relatives of patients with CRC.MethodsEligible individuals age 30 to 74 years who were not up-to-date with risk-appropriate screening and were not candidates for genetic testing were recruited after contacting patients with CRC or their next of kin in five states. Enrollees were randomly assigned as family units to either an active, personalized intervention that incorporated evidence-based risk communication and behavior change techniques, or a mailed educational brochure. The primary outcome was medically verified colonoscopy within 9 months of the intervention.ResultsOf the 481 eligible and randomly assigned at-risk relatives, 79.8% completed the outcome assessments within 9 months; 35.4% of those in the personalized intervention group and 15.7% of those in the comparison group obtained a colonoscopy. In an intent-to-treat analysis, the telehealth group was almost three times as likely to get screened as the low-intensity comparison group (odds ratio, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.87 to 4.28; P < .001). Persons residing in rural areas and those with lower incomes benefitted at the same level as did urban residents.ConclusionRemote personalized interventions that consider family history and incorporate evidence-based risk communication and behavior change strategies may promote risk-appropriate screening in close relatives of patients with CRC.
| S-EPMC3927734 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivePatients with COPD consistently express a desire to discuss end-of-life care with clinicians, but these discussions rarely occur. We assessed whether an intervention using patient-specific feedback about preferences for discussing end-of-life care would improve the occurrence and quality of communication between patients with COPD and their clinicians.MethodsWe performed a cluster-randomized trial of clinicians and patients from the outpatient clinics at the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System. Using self-reported questionnaires, we assessed patients' preferences for communication, life-sustaining therapy, and experiences at the end of life. The intervention clinicians and patients received a one-page patient-specific feedback form, based on questionnaire responses, to stimulate conversations. The control group completed questionnaires but did not receive feedback. Patient-reported occurrence and quality of end-of-life communication (QOC) were assessed within 2 weeks of a targeted visit. Intention-to-treat regression analyses were performed with generalized estimating equations to account for clustering of patients within clinicians.ResultsNinety-two clinicians contributed 376 patients. Patients in the intervention arm reported nearly a threefold higher rate of discussions about end-of-life care (unadjusted, 30% vs 11%; P < .001). Baseline end-of-life communication was poor (intervention group QOC score, 23.3; 95% CI, 19.9-26.8; control QOC score, 19.2; 95% CI, 15.9-22.4). Patients in the intervention arm reported higher-quality end-of-life communication that was statistically significant, although the overall improvement was small (Cohen effect size, 0.21).ConclusionsA one-page patient-specific feedback form about preferences for end-of-life care and communication improved the occurrence and quality of communication from patients' perspectives.Trial registryClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT00106080; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.
| S-EPMC3415164 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImplementing genetic testing for inherited cancer predisposition into routine clinical care offers a tremendous opportunity for cancer prevention and early detection. However, genetic testing itself does not improve outcomes; rather, outcomes depend on implemented follow-up care. The IMPACT study is a hybrid type I randomized effectiveness-implementation trial to simultaneously evaluate the effectiveness of two interventions for individuals with inherited cancer predisposition focused on: 1) increasing family communication (FC) of genetic test results; and 2) improving engagement with guideline-based cancer risk management (CRM).MethodsThis prospective study will recruit a racially, geographically, and socioeconomically diverse population of individuals with a documented pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant in an inherited cancer gene. Eligible participants will be asked to complete an initial trial survey and randomly assigned to one of three arms: A) GeneSHARE, a website designed to increase FC of genetic test results; B) My Gene Counsel's Living Lab Report, a digital tool designed to improve understanding of genetic test results and next steps, including CRM guidelines; or C) a control arm in which participants continue receiving standard care. Follow-up surveys will be conducted at 1, 3, and 12 months following randomization. These surveys include single-item measures, scales, and indices related to: 1) FC and CRM behaviors and behavioral factors following the COM-B theoretical framework (i.e., capability, opportunity, and motivation); 2) implementation outcomes (i.e., acceptability, appropriateness, exposure, and reach); and 3) other contextual factors (i.e., sociodemographic and clinical factors, and uncertainty, distress, and positive aspects of genetic test results). The primary outcomes are an increase in FC of genetic test results (Arm A) and improved engagement with guideline-based CRM without overtreatment or undertreatment (Arm B) by the 12-month follow-up survey.DiscussionOur interventions are designed to shift the paradigm by which individuals with P/LP variants in inherited cancer genes are provided with information to enhance FC of genetic test results and engagement with guideline-based CRM. The information gathered through evaluating the effectiveness and implementation of these real-world approaches is needed to modify and scale up adaptive, stepped interventions that have the potential to maximize FC and CRM.Trial registrationThis study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04763915, date registered: February 21, 2021).Protocol versionSeptember 17th, 2021 Amendment Number 04.
| S-EPMC8513202 | biostudies-literature