Advertisement

How does patient-centered communication in ovarian cancer care enhance patient well-being? A mixed methods study

Published:August 31, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.08.019

      Highlights

      • Patient-clinician communication is positively associated with health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in ovarian cancer care.
      • Patients' perceptions of clinicians' commitment, self-care burden, and psychosocial support may influence HRQoL.
      • Empathetic communication strategies and patient navigation services may shape these influences.
      • Eliciting information preferences prior to information exchange may promote well-being in these patients.

      Abstract

      Objective

      Greater perceived patient-centered communication (PCC) is associated with better health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with ovarian cancer. Quantitative measures of PCC and HRQoL do little to explain this association. We interviewed patients with high and low ratings of PCC to understand how it is associated with HRQoL.

      Methods

      Explanatory sequential mixed methods study. Participants were English-speaking U.S. adults with ovarian cancer. We assessed PCC with the Patient-Centered Communication - Cancer (PCC-Ca)-36 (possible score range 1–5; higher scores represent greater patient-centeredness), and purposively sampled 14 participants with total scores in the top and bottom quartiles. Participants completed individual, semi-structured interviews about their communication experiences. Guided by the National Cancer Institute Framework for PCC in Cancer Care, we analyzed interview transcripts using directed content analysis. We integrated survey and interview findings in a joint display.

      Results

      Among 176 survey respondents, PCC-Ca-36 total scores ranged from 1.7 to 5.0. Participants with scores in the top quartile (4.8–5.0) perceived clinicians as proactive and attentive to psychosocial concerns. Those with scores in the bottom quartile (1.7–3.5) described not feeling known as an individual and receiving limited support for self-management.

      Conclusions

      The association between PCC and QoL may be partially explained by differences in perceived support for psychosocial concerns and self-management. PCC may facilitate receipt of proactive, personalized care.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Gynecologic Oncology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Siegel R.L.
        • Miller K.D.
        • Fuchs H.E.
        • Jemal A.
        Cancer statistics, 2022.
        CA Cancer J. Clin. 2022; 72: 7-33https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21708
        • Coleman R.L.
        • Spirtos N.M.
        • Enserro D.
        • et al.
        Secondary Surgical Cytoreduction for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer.
        N. Engl. J. Med. Nov 14 2019; 381: 1929-1939https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1902626
        • American Cancer Society
        Cancer Facts & Figures 2020.
        • Norton T.R.
        • Manne S.L.
        • Rubin S.
        • et al.
        Prevalence and predictors of psychological distress among women with ovarian cancer.
        J Clin Oncol. Mar 1 2004; 22: 919-926https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.07.028
        • von Gruenigen V.E.
        • Huang H.Q.
        • Cella D.
        • et al.
        Quality of life, symptoms and care needs in patients with persistent or recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: an NRG oncology/gynecologic oncology group study.
        Gynecol. Oncol. Jul 2018; 150: 119-126https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.05.017
        • Yabroff K.R.
        • Davis W.W.
        • Lamont E.B.
        • et al.
        Patient time costs associated with Cancer care.
        J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2007; 99: 14-23https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djk001
        • Street Jr., R.L.
        • Spears E.
        • Madrid S.
        • Mazor K.M.
        Cancer survivors’ experiences with breakdowns in patient-centered communication.
        Psychooncology. Feb 2019; 28: 423-429https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4963
        • Zwingmann J.
        • Baile W.F.
        • Schmier J.W.
        • Bernhard J.
        • Keller M.
        Effects of patient-centered communication on anxiety, negative affect, and trust in the physician in delivering a cancer diagnosis: a randomized, experimental study.
        Cancer. 2017; 123: 3167-3175https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30694
        • Littell R.D.
        • Kumar A.
        • Einstein M.H.
        • Karam A.
        • Bevis K.
        Advanced communication: a critical component of high quality gynecologic cancer care: a Society of Gynecologic Oncology evidence based review and guide.
        Gynecol. Oncol. Oct 2019; 155: 161-169https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.07.026
        • Epstein R.
        • Street R.
        Patient-Centered Communication in Cancer Care: Promoting Healing and Reducing Suffering. NIH Publication No. 07–6225.
        National Cancer Institute, 2007
        • Pozzar R.A.
        • Xiong N.
        • Hong F.
        • et al.
        Perceived patient-centered communication, quality of life, and symptom burden in individuals with ovarian cancer.
        Gynecol. Oncol. Aug 25 2021; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.08.007
        • Pozzar R.
        • Berry D.
        Communicating is analogous to caring: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of the patient-clinician communication experiences of individuals with ovarian cancer.
        Palliat. Support. Care. May 18 2022; https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951522000621
        • Creswell J.W.
        • Plano Clark V.L.
        Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research.
        2nd ed. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA2011
        • Teddlie C.
        Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
        SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA2009
        • Fetters M.D.
        • Curry L.A.
        • Creswell J.W.
        Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—principles and practices.
        Health Serv. Res. 2013; 48: 2134-2156https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117
        • Reeve B.B.
        • Thissen D.M.
        • Bann C.M.
        • et al.
        Psychometric evaluation and design of patient-centered communication measures for cancer care settings.
        Patient Educ. Couns. 2017; 100: 1322-1328https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2017.02.011
        • Hsieh H.-F.
        • Shannon S.
        Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.
        Qual. Health Res. 2005; 15: 1277-1288https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
        • McCormack L.A.
        • Treiman K.
        • Rupert D.
        • et al.
        Measuring patient-centered communication in cancer care: a literature review and the development of a systematic approach.
        Soc. Sci. Med. Apr 2011; 72: 1085-1095https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.01.020
        • Jewett P.I.
        • Vogel R.I.
        • Galchutt P.
        • et al.
        Associations between a sense of connection and existential and psychosocial outcomes in gynecologic and breast cancer survivors.
        Support Care Cancer. 2022; 30 (2022/04/01): 3329-3336https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06784-8
        • Hagan T.L.
        • Gilbertson-White S.
        • Cohen S.M.
        • Temel J.S.
        • Greer J.A.
        • Donovan H.S.
        Symptom burden and self-advocacy: exploring the relationship among female cancer survivors.
        Clin. J. Oncol. Nurs. Feb 1 2018; 22: E23-e30https://doi.org/10.1188/18.Cjon.E23-e30
        • Bernardo B.M.
        • Zhang X.
        • Beverly Hery C.M.
        • Meadows R.J.
        • Paskett E.D.
        The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of patient navigation programs across the cancer continuum: a systematic review.
        Cancer. 2019; 125: 2747-2761https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.32147
        • Kline R.M.
        • Rocque G.B.
        • Rohan E.A.
        • et al.
        Patient navigation in cancer: the business case to support clinical needs.
        J. Oncol. Pract. Nov 2019; 15: 585-590https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.19.00230
        • Alexander S.C.
        • Pollak K.I.
        • Morgan P.A.
        • et al.
        How do non-physician clinicians respond to advanced cancer patients’ negative expressions of emotions?.
        Support Care Cancer. Jan 2011; 19: 155-159https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-010-0996-5
        • Kennifer S.L.
        • Alexander S.C.
        • Pollak K.I.
        • et al.
        Negative emotions in cancer care: do oncologists’ responses depend on severity and type of emotion?.
        Patient Educ. Couns. Jul 2009; 76: 51-56https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2008.10.003
        • Hsu I.
        • Saha S.
        • Korthuis P.T.
        • et al.
        Providing support to patients in emotional encounters: a new perspective on missed empathic opportunities.
        Patient Educ. Couns. Sep 2012; 88: 436-442https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2012.06.015
        • Fagerlind H.
        • Kettis A.
        • Bergstrom I.
        • Glimelius B.
        • Ring L.
        Different perspectives on communication quality and emotional functioning during routine oncology consultations.
        Patient Educ. Couns. Jul 2012; 88: 16-22https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2011.12.002
        • Taylor S.
        • Harley C.
        • Campbell L.J.
        • et al.
        Discussion of emotional and social impact of cancer during outpatient oncology consultations.
        Psychooncology. Mar 2011; 20: 242-251https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1730
        • Frey Nascimento A.
        • Tondorf T.
        • Rothschild S.I.
        • et al.
        Oncologist recommendation matters!-predictors of psycho-oncological service uptake in oncology outpatients.
        Psychooncology. Feb 2019; 28: 351-357https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4948
        • Ernst J.
        • Faller H.
        • Koch U.
        • et al.
        Doctor’s recommendations for psychosocial care: frequency and predictors of recommendations and referrals.
        PLoS One. 2018; 13: e0205160https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205160
        • Hoffstädt H.
        • Stouthard J.
        • Meijers M.C.
        • et al.
        Patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions of clinician-expressed empathy in advanced cancer consultations and associations with patient outcomes.
        Palliat. Med. Rep. Jun 2020; 1: 76-83https://doi.org/10.1089/pmr.2020.0052
        • Ozga M.
        • Aghajanian C.
        • Myers-Virtue S.
        • et al.
        A systematic review of ovarian cancer and fear of recurrence.
        Palliat. Support Care. Dec 2015; 13: 1771-1780https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951515000127
        • Childers J.W.
        • Back A.L.
        • Tulsky J.A.
        • Arnold R.M.
        REMAP: a framework for goals of care conversations.
        J. Oncol. Pract. Oct 2017; 13: e844-e850https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2016.018796
        • Paladino J.
        • Bernacki R.
        • Neville B.A.
        • et al.
        Evaluating an intervention to improve communication between oncology clinicians and patients with life-limiting cancer: a cluster randomized clinical trial of the serious illness care program.
        JAMA Oncol. Jun 2019; 5: 801-809https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0292