Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 1/2017

01.02.2017 | Original Research Article

Engaging Patient Advocates and Other Stakeholders to Design Measures of Patient-Centered Communication in Cancer Care

verfasst von: Katherine Treiman, Lauren McCormack, Murrey Olmsted, Nancy Roach, Bryce B. Reeve, Christa E. Martens, Rebecca R. Moultrie, Hanna Sanoff

Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Ausgabe 1/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Patient-centered communication (PCC) is an essential component of patient-centered care and contributes to patient satisfaction, health-related quality of life, and other important patient outcomes.

Objective

The aim of this study was to develop and test survey questions to assess patients’ experiences with PCC in cancer care.

Methods

We used a conceptual model developed by the National Cancer Institute as our framework. The survey questions align with the six core functions of PCC defined in the model: Exchanging Information, Managing Uncertainty, Enabling Patient Self-Management, Fostering Healing Relationships, Making Decisions, and Responding to Emotions. The study focused on colorectal cancer patients. We conducted two rounds of cognitive interviewing to evaluate patients’ ability to understand and provide valid answers to the PCC questions. Interviews were conducted in Maryland and North Carolina in 2014. We involved a patient advocacy group, Fight Colorectal Cancer, and a multidisciplinary panel of stakeholders throughout the measurement development process to ensure that the survey questions capture aspects of PCC that are important to patients and meet the needs of potential end users, including researchers, healthcare organizations, and health professionals.

Results

Patient and other stakeholder input informed revisions of draft survey questions, including changes to survey instructions, frame of reference for questions, response scales, and language.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated the feasibility and value of engaging patients and other stakeholders in a measurement development study. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) conceptual model of patient-centered outcomes research provides a useful guide for patient engagement in research. Research funders should call for meaningful roles for patients and other stakeholders in health research, including in the development of patient-centered outcomes.
Literatur
1.
Epstein RM, Street RL Jr. Patient-centered communication in cancer care: promoting healing and reducing suffering. Bethesda: National Cancer Institute; 2007. NIH publication no. 07-6225.
2.
Arora NK. Interacting with cancer patients: the significance of physicians’ communication behavior. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(5):791–806.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Andersen MR, Urban N. Involvement in decision-making and breast cancer survivor quality of life. Ann Behav Med. 1999;21(3):201–9.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Street RL Jr, Voigt B. Patient participation in deciding breast cancer treatment and subsequent quality of life. Med Decis Making. 1997;17(3):298–306.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Street RL Jr, Makoul G, Arora NK, Epstein RM. How does communication heal? Pathways linking clinician-patient communication to health outcomes. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;74(3):295–301.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Fallowfield LJ, Hall A, Maguire P, Baum M, A’Hern RP. Psychological effects of being offered choice of surgery for breast cancer. BMJ. 1994;309(6952):448.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
8.
Fogarty LA, Curbow BA, Wingard JR, McDonnell K, Somerfield MR. Can 40 seconds of compassion reduce patient anxiety? J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(1):371–9.PubMed
9.
Roberts CS, Cox CE, Reintgen DS, Baile WF, Gibertini M. Influence of physician communication on newly diagnosed breast patients’ psychologic adjustment and decision-making. Cancer. 1994;74(1 Suppl):336–41.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Takayama T, Yamazaki Y, Katsumata N. Relationship between outpatients’ perceptions of physicians’ communication styles and patients’ anxiety levels in a Japanese oncology setting. Soc Sci Med. 2001;53(10):1335–50.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49(5):651–61.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Ware JE Jr. Assessing the effects of physician-patient interactions on the outcomes of chronic disease. Med Care. 1989;27(3 Suppl):S110–27.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Lewin SA, Skea ZC, Entwistle V, Zwarenstein M, Dick J. Interventions for providers to promote a patient-centred approach in clinical consultations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;4:CD003267.
14.
Baile WF, Lenzi R, Parker PA, Buckman R, Cohen L. Oncologists’ attitudes toward and practices in giving bad news: an exploratory study. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(8):2189–96.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Parker PA, Baile WF, de Moor C, Lenzi R, Kudelka AP, Cohen L. Breaking bad news about cancer: patients’ preferences for communication. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(7):2049–56.PubMed
16.
Back AL, Arnold RM, Baile WF, Fryer-Edwards KA, Alexander SC, Barley GE, et al. Efficacy of communication skills training for giving bad news and discussing transitions to palliative care. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(5):453–60.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Epstein RM, Alper BS, Quill TE. Communicating evidence for participatory decision making. JAMA. 2004;291(19):2359–66.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Babrow AS, Kline KN. From “reducing” to “coping with” uncertainty: reconceptualizing the central challenge in breast self-exams. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51(12):1805–16.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Bailey DE, Mishel MH, Belyea M, Stewart JL, Mohler J. Uncertainty intervention for watchful waiting in prostate cancer. Cancer Nurs. 2004;27(5):339–46.CrossRefPubMed
20.
McCormack L, Treiman K, Olmsted M, et al. Advancing measurement of patient-centered communication in cancer care: final project report. Research Triangle Park: RTI International; 2011.
21.
Fleurence R, Selby JV, Odom-Walker K, Hunt G, Meltzer D, Slutsky JR, et al. How the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute is engaging patients and others in shaping its research agenda. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(2):393–400.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Frank L, Forsythe L, Ellis L, Schrandt S, Sheridan S, Gerson J, et al. Conceptual and practical foundations of patient engagement in research at the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(5):1033–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Tinnetti ME, Basch E. Patients’ responsibility to participate in decision making and research. JAMA. 2013;309(22):2331–2.CrossRef
24.
Bath J, Wakerman J. Impact of community participation in primary health care: what is the evidence? Aust J Prim Health. 2015;21(1):2–8.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Cashman SB, Adeky S, Allen AJ 3rd, Corburn J, Israel BA, Montano J, et al. The power and the promise: working with communities to analyze data, interpret findings, and get to outcomes. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(8):1407–17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Viswanathan M, Ammerman A, Eng E, Gartlehner G, Lohr KN, Griffith D, et al. Community-based participatory research: assessing the evidence. Rockville: Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 99 (Prepared by RTI-University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0016); 2004. AHRQ publication 04-E022-02.
27.
Salimi Y, Shahandeh K, Malekafzali H, Loori N, Kheiltash A, Jamshidi E, et al. Is community-based participatory research (CBPR) useful? A systematic review on papers in a decade. Int J Prev Med. 2012;3(6):386–93.PubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Tapp H, White L, Steuerwald M, Dulin M. Use of community-based participatory research in primary care to improve healthcare outcomes and disparities in care. J Comp Eff Res. 2013;2(4):405–19.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
30.
31.
32.
Whitlock EP, Lopez SA, Chang S, Helfand M, Eder M, Floyd N. AHRQ series paper 3. Identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):491–501.CrossRefPubMed
33.
34.
Staniszewska S, Brett J, Mockford C, Barber R. The GRIPP checklist: strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(4):391–9.CrossRefPubMed
35.
36.
37.
Willis GB. Cognitive interviewing: a tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2005.CrossRef
38.
Tourangeau R, Rips LJ, Rasinski K. The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
39.
Dillman D, Smyth J, Christian L. Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. New York: Wiley; 2009.
40.
41.
Metadaten
Titel
Engaging Patient Advocates and Other Stakeholders to Design Measures of Patient-Centered Communication in Cancer Care
verfasst von
Katherine Treiman
Lauren McCormack
Murrey Olmsted
Nancy Roach
Bryce B. Reeve
Christa E. Martens
Rebecca R. Moultrie
Hanna Sanoff
Publikationsdatum
01.02.2017
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Ausgabe 1/2017
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Elektronische ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-016-0188-6

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2017

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 1/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Systematic Review

Patient Preferences for Oral Anticoagulation Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Literature Review

Review Article

Patient-Centered Outcome Measures to Assess Functioning in Randomized Controlled Trials of Low-Vision Rehabilitation: A Review

Original Research Article

Content Validity for the VVSymQ® Instrument: A New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for the Assessment of Varicose Veins Symptoms

Original Research Article

EQ-5D Health Utility Scores: Data from a Comprehensive Canadian Cancer Centre

Systematic Review

A Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis of Patients’ Experiences and Perceptions of Seeking and Using Benzodiazepines and Z-Drugs: Towards Safer Prescribing

Original Research Article

What Outcomes are Important for Gout Patients? In-Depth Qualitative Research into the Gout Patient Experience to Determine Optimal Endpoints for Evaluating Therapeutic Interventions