Impact of Prognostic Discussions on the Patient-Physician Relationship: Prospective Cohort Study
Purpose Some research has suggested that discussion of prognosis can disrupt the patient-physician relationship. This study assessed whether physician discussion of prognosis is associated with detrimental changes in measures of the strength of the patient-physician relationship. Methods This was a...
Uloženo v:
| Vydáno v: | Journal of clinical oncology Ročník 36; číslo 3; s. 225 |
|---|---|
| Hlavní autoři: | , , , , , , , |
| Médium: | Journal Article |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Vydáno: |
United States
20.01.2018
|
| ISSN: | 1527-7755, 1527-7755 |
| On-line přístup: | Zjistit podrobnosti o přístupu |
| Tagy: |
Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
|
| Abstract | Purpose Some research has suggested that discussion of prognosis can disrupt the patient-physician relationship. This study assessed whether physician discussion of prognosis is associated with detrimental changes in measures of the strength of the patient-physician relationship. Methods This was a longitudinal cohort study of 265 adult patients with advanced cancer who visited 38 oncologists within community- and hospital-based cancer clinics in Western New York and Northern California. Prognostic discussion was assessed by coding transcribed audio-recorded visits using the Prognostic and Treatment Choices (PTCC) scale and by patient survey at 3 months after the clinic visit. Changes in the strength of the patient-physician relationship were computed as differences in patient responses to The Human Connection and the Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions scales from baseline to 2 to 7 days and 3 months after the clinic visit. Results Prognostic discussion was not associated with a temporal decline in either measure. Indeed, a one-unit increase in PTCC during the audio-recorded visit was associated with improvement in The Human Connection scale at 2 to 7 days after the visit (parameter estimate, 0.10; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.23) and 3 months after the visit (parameter estimate, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.35) relative to baseline. Standardized effect sizes (SES) associated with an increase of two standard deviations in the PTCC at each time point were consistent with small beneficial effects (SES, 0.14 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.29] at 2 to 7 days; SES, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.02 to 0.45] at 3 months), and lower bounds of CIs indicated that substantial detrimental effects of prognostic discussion were unlikely. Conclusion Prognostic discussion is not intrinsically harmful to the patient-physician relationship and may even strengthen the therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Purpose Some research has suggested that discussion of prognosis can disrupt the patient-physician relationship. This study assessed whether physician discussion of prognosis is associated with detrimental changes in measures of the strength of the patient-physician relationship. Methods This was a longitudinal cohort study of 265 adult patients with advanced cancer who visited 38 oncologists within community- and hospital-based cancer clinics in Western New York and Northern California. Prognostic discussion was assessed by coding transcribed audio-recorded visits using the Prognostic and Treatment Choices (PTCC) scale and by patient survey at 3 months after the clinic visit. Changes in the strength of the patient-physician relationship were computed as differences in patient responses to The Human Connection and the Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions scales from baseline to 2 to 7 days and 3 months after the clinic visit. Results Prognostic discussion was not associated with a temporal decline in either measure. Indeed, a one-unit increase in PTCC during the audio-recorded visit was associated with improvement in The Human Connection scale at 2 to 7 days after the visit (parameter estimate, 0.10; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.23) and 3 months after the visit (parameter estimate, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.35) relative to baseline. Standardized effect sizes (SES) associated with an increase of two standard deviations in the PTCC at each time point were consistent with small beneficial effects (SES, 0.14 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.29] at 2 to 7 days; SES, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.02 to 0.45] at 3 months), and lower bounds of CIs indicated that substantial detrimental effects of prognostic discussion were unlikely. Conclusion Prognostic discussion is not intrinsically harmful to the patient-physician relationship and may even strengthen the therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists. Purpose Some research has suggested that discussion of prognosis can disrupt the patient-physician relationship. This study assessed whether physician discussion of prognosis is associated with detrimental changes in measures of the strength of the patient-physician relationship. Methods This was a longitudinal cohort study of 265 adult patients with advanced cancer who visited 38 oncologists within community- and hospital-based cancer clinics in Western New York and Northern California. Prognostic discussion was assessed by coding transcribed audio-recorded visits using the Prognostic and Treatment Choices (PTCC) scale and by patient survey at 3 months after the clinic visit. Changes in the strength of the patient-physician relationship were computed as differences in patient responses to The Human Connection and the Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions scales from baseline to 2 to 7 days and 3 months after the clinic visit. Results Prognostic discussion was not associated with a temporal decline in either measure. Indeed, a one-unit increase in PTCC during the audio-recorded visit was associated with improvement in The Human Connection scale at 2 to 7 days after the visit (parameter estimate, 0.10; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.23) and 3 months after the visit (parameter estimate, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.35) relative to baseline. Standardized effect sizes (SES) associated with an increase of two standard deviations in the PTCC at each time point were consistent with small beneficial effects (SES, 0.14 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.29] at 2 to 7 days; SES, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.02 to 0.45] at 3 months), and lower bounds of CIs indicated that substantial detrimental effects of prognostic discussion were unlikely. Conclusion Prognostic discussion is not intrinsically harmful to the patient-physician relationship and may even strengthen the therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists.Purpose Some research has suggested that discussion of prognosis can disrupt the patient-physician relationship. This study assessed whether physician discussion of prognosis is associated with detrimental changes in measures of the strength of the patient-physician relationship. Methods This was a longitudinal cohort study of 265 adult patients with advanced cancer who visited 38 oncologists within community- and hospital-based cancer clinics in Western New York and Northern California. Prognostic discussion was assessed by coding transcribed audio-recorded visits using the Prognostic and Treatment Choices (PTCC) scale and by patient survey at 3 months after the clinic visit. Changes in the strength of the patient-physician relationship were computed as differences in patient responses to The Human Connection and the Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions scales from baseline to 2 to 7 days and 3 months after the clinic visit. Results Prognostic discussion was not associated with a temporal decline in either measure. Indeed, a one-unit increase in PTCC during the audio-recorded visit was associated with improvement in The Human Connection scale at 2 to 7 days after the visit (parameter estimate, 0.10; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.23) and 3 months after the visit (parameter estimate, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.35) relative to baseline. Standardized effect sizes (SES) associated with an increase of two standard deviations in the PTCC at each time point were consistent with small beneficial effects (SES, 0.14 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.29] at 2 to 7 days; SES, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.02 to 0.45] at 3 months), and lower bounds of CIs indicated that substantial detrimental effects of prognostic discussion were unlikely. Conclusion Prognostic discussion is not intrinsically harmful to the patient-physician relationship and may even strengthen the therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists. |
| Author | Xing, Guibo Fiscella, Kevin Kravitz, Richard L Mohile, Supriya Fenton, Joshua J Tancredi, Daniel J Epstein, Ronald M Duberstein, Paul R |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Joshua J surname: Fenton fullname: Fenton, Joshua J organization: Joshua J. Fenton, Richard L. Kravitz, Guibo Xing, and Daniel J. Tancredi, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; Paul R. Duberstein, Kevin Fiscella, and Ronald M. Epstein, University of Rochester; Supriya Mohile and Ronald M. Epstein, UR Medicine Wilmot Cancer Institute, Rochester, NY – sequence: 2 givenname: Paul R surname: Duberstein fullname: Duberstein, Paul R organization: Joshua J. Fenton, Richard L. Kravitz, Guibo Xing, and Daniel J. Tancredi, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; Paul R. Duberstein, Kevin Fiscella, and Ronald M. Epstein, University of Rochester; Supriya Mohile and Ronald M. Epstein, UR Medicine Wilmot Cancer Institute, Rochester, NY – sequence: 3 givenname: Richard L surname: Kravitz fullname: Kravitz, Richard L organization: Joshua J. Fenton, Richard L. Kravitz, Guibo Xing, and Daniel J. Tancredi, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; Paul R. Duberstein, Kevin Fiscella, and Ronald M. Epstein, University of Rochester; Supriya Mohile and Ronald M. Epstein, UR Medicine Wilmot Cancer Institute, Rochester, NY – sequence: 4 givenname: Guibo surname: Xing fullname: Xing, Guibo organization: Joshua J. Fenton, Richard L. Kravitz, Guibo Xing, and Daniel J. Tancredi, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; Paul R. Duberstein, Kevin Fiscella, and Ronald M. Epstein, University of Rochester; Supriya Mohile and Ronald M. Epstein, UR Medicine Wilmot Cancer Institute, Rochester, NY – sequence: 5 givenname: Daniel J surname: Tancredi fullname: Tancredi, Daniel J organization: Joshua J. Fenton, Richard L. Kravitz, Guibo Xing, and Daniel J. Tancredi, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; Paul R. Duberstein, Kevin Fiscella, and Ronald M. Epstein, University of Rochester; Supriya Mohile and Ronald M. Epstein, UR Medicine Wilmot Cancer Institute, Rochester, NY – sequence: 6 givenname: Kevin surname: Fiscella fullname: Fiscella, Kevin organization: Joshua J. Fenton, Richard L. Kravitz, Guibo Xing, and Daniel J. Tancredi, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; Paul R. Duberstein, Kevin Fiscella, and Ronald M. Epstein, University of Rochester; Supriya Mohile and Ronald M. Epstein, UR Medicine Wilmot Cancer Institute, Rochester, NY – sequence: 7 givenname: Supriya surname: Mohile fullname: Mohile, Supriya organization: Joshua J. Fenton, Richard L. Kravitz, Guibo Xing, and Daniel J. Tancredi, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; Paul R. Duberstein, Kevin Fiscella, and Ronald M. Epstein, University of Rochester; Supriya Mohile and Ronald M. Epstein, UR Medicine Wilmot Cancer Institute, Rochester, NY – sequence: 8 givenname: Ronald M surname: Epstein fullname: Epstein, Ronald M organization: Joshua J. Fenton, Richard L. Kravitz, Guibo Xing, and Daniel J. Tancredi, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; Paul R. Duberstein, Kevin Fiscella, and Ronald M. Epstein, University of Rochester; Supriya Mohile and Ronald M. Epstein, UR Medicine Wilmot Cancer Institute, Rochester, NY |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29148892$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNpNkEtLxDAURoOMOA_du5Is3bQmafqIOxnfDMzgY13T5I6NtEltUmH-vRVHcPUdPs69cO8cTayzgNApJTFlhFw8LtcxIzSP8zTOWFEcoBlNWR7leZpO_vEUzb3_IITyIkmP0JSJkQrBZujtoe2kCtht8aZ379b5YBS-Nl4N3htnPXYWhxrwRgYDNkSbeueNMtLiJ2jGblRq013-TPsOVDBfgJeudn3Az2HQu2N0uJWNh5N9LtDr7c3L8j5are8ellerSPGMhUgozirCOOFKb2WVMaaJyECCYllRaakVF4UWNNFKAxEAhJMkyVNJgWhRCbZA5797u959DuBD2Y5HQNNIC27wJRVZxhJO8mRUz_bqULWgy643rex35d9X2DdWpGet |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_2215_CJN_04860421 crossref_primary_10_1080_10410236_2023_2210383 crossref_primary_10_1089_jpm_2018_0487 crossref_primary_10_1089_jpm_2018_0441 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_blre_2020_100692 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_socscimed_2022_115546 crossref_primary_10_1182_bloodadvances_2022008996 crossref_primary_10_1634_theoncologist_2018_0890 crossref_primary_10_1097_OR9_0000000000000049 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00481_021_00679_2 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_mcna_2022_01_007 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jpainsymman_2023_07_001 crossref_primary_10_3390_healthcare11202802 crossref_primary_10_1002_pon_5385 crossref_primary_10_1089_jpm_2023_0530 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00520_020_05498_7 crossref_primary_10_1016_S0140_6736_24_00747_5 crossref_primary_10_1097_MD_0000000000025397 crossref_primary_10_1111_imj_14739 crossref_primary_10_2215_CJN_13781119 crossref_primary_10_1089_jpm_2022_0265 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph18115694 crossref_primary_10_1177_10499091211012614 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00520_019_05158_5 crossref_primary_10_1111_hex_13805 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_clcc_2019_08_004 crossref_primary_10_1111_ijcp_14556 crossref_primary_10_1542_peds_2020_044503 crossref_primary_10_1177_26323524251326949 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_suc_2019_06_005 crossref_primary_10_1002_cncr_32127 crossref_primary_10_1200_EDBK_238181 crossref_primary_10_1002_pbc_29920 crossref_primary_10_1111_acem_15096 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12883_020_02004_8 crossref_primary_10_1111_ecc_12973 crossref_primary_10_1200_EDBK_201211 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11912_021_01027_9 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_pec_2021_07_030 crossref_primary_10_1002_cncr_34018 crossref_primary_10_1093_oncolo_oyaf065 crossref_primary_10_1017_S1478951523001165 crossref_primary_10_1177_1049909119848987 crossref_primary_10_1089_jpm_2018_0338 crossref_primary_10_1177_02692163231191148 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00246_022_02913_0 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11136_018_1984_3 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jpainsymman_2020_07_025 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_pecinn_2022_100017 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jpainsymman_2020_02_005 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00520_022_07167_3 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00520_019_05185_2 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11060_022_04010_x crossref_primary_10_1177_1049909120905789 crossref_primary_10_1177_10499091211061713 crossref_primary_10_1111_ecc_12981 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13187_020_01772_8 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12885_022_10190_6 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| DBID | NPM 7X8 |
| DOI | 10.1200/JCO.2017.75.6288 |
| DatabaseName | PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitle | PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | no_fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine Pharmacy, Therapeutics, & Pharmacology |
| EISSN | 1527-7755 |
| ExternalDocumentID | 29148892 |
| Genre | Journal Article |
| GrantInformation_xml | – fundername: NCI NIH HHS grantid: R01 CA168387 – fundername: NCI NIH HHS grantid: R01 CA140419 – fundername: NCI NIH HHS grantid: UG1 CA189961 |
| GroupedDBID | --- .55 0R~ 18M 2WC 34G 39C 4.4 53G 5GY 5RE 8F7 AAQQT AARDX AAWTL AAYEP AAYOK ABJNI ABOCM ACGFO ACGFS ACGUR ADBBV AEGXH AENEX AIAGR ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS BAWUL BYPQX C45 CS3 DIK EBS EJD F5P F9R FBNNL FD8 GX1 H13 HZ~ IH2 K-O KQ8 L7B LSO MJL N9A NPM O9- OK1 OVD OWW P2P QTD R1G RHI RLZ RUC SJN TEORI TR2 TWZ UDS VVN WH7 X7M YCJ YFH YQY 7X8 ABBLC |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-9c42b02404cdfab622d096eaec268bdadc498d913dcde09ee0403375a1e0d9b92 |
| IEDL.DBID | 7X8 |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 64 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000422821600003&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 1527-7755 |
| IngestDate | Mon Jul 21 09:27:59 EDT 2025 Thu Apr 03 07:09:08 EDT 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | false |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 3 |
| Language | English |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c462t-9c42b02404cdfab622d096eaec268bdadc498d913dcde09ee0403375a1e0d9b92 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/5773842 |
| PMID | 29148892 |
| PQID | 1966234073 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_1966234073 pubmed_primary_29148892 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2018-01-20 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2018-01-20 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 01 year: 2018 text: 2018-01-20 day: 20 |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | United States |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States |
| PublicationTitle | Journal of clinical oncology |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | J Clin Oncol |
| PublicationYear | 2018 |
| SSID | ssj0014835 |
| Score | 2.5114744 |
| Snippet | Purpose Some research has suggested that discussion of prognosis can disrupt the patient-physician relationship. This study assessed whether physician... |
| SourceID | proquest pubmed |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database |
| StartPage | 225 |
| Title | Impact of Prognostic Discussions on the Patient-Physician Relationship: Prospective Cohort Study |
| URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29148892 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1966234073 |
| Volume | 36 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos000422821600003&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1LS8NAEF7UinjxUV_1xQrSU9M2m02y60WkWlRozaFCbzH7CO0lqU0r9N87m4c9CYKXnLIh7HyZncx8Mx9Ct6rLiXQFtSLCPIsy8IMRI46lbBZzpTzNBc3FJvzhkI3HPCgTbllJq6x8Yu6oVSpNjrwDSIGTGn4_nPvZp2VUo0x1tZTQ2EQ1B0IZg2p_vK4iUJYLbBrlVogiXbcsUwIwOq-9N8Pr8tu-2zaKu78HmPlB09__7yseoL0yxMQPBSYO0YZO6mhnUBbR66gZFOOqVy08WndfZS3cxMF6kPXqCH285C2UOI1xME8NIw_uw4_TTC4NdzbJcJpgCCBxUAxntYIqTYJ_OHaT6ezOrK46OnEvnUDEjw1_cXWM3vtPo96zVSoyWJJ6ZGFxSYkwU9GoVHEkPELA1p6OtCQeEypSknKmuO0oqXSXaw0uwnF8N7J1V3HByQnaStJEnyEsbcGplC5jjqBcgglceKAdGc1QJmPVQDfVJoeAeFPGiBKdLrNwvc0NdFpYKpwVozlCwsHojJPzP6y-QLuAAEPlA1dxiWoxfO_6Cm3Lr8U0m1_nUILrMBh8A0Fn1Ls |
| linkProvider | ProQuest |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Impact+of+Prognostic+Discussions+on+the+Patient-Physician+Relationship%3A+Prospective+Cohort+Study&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+clinical+oncology&rft.au=Fenton%2C+Joshua+J&rft.au=Duberstein%2C+Paul+R&rft.au=Kravitz%2C+Richard+L&rft.au=Xing%2C+Guibo&rft.date=2018-01-20&rft.issn=1527-7755&rft.eissn=1527-7755&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=225&rft_id=info:doi/10.1200%2FJCO.2017.75.6288&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1527-7755&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1527-7755&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1527-7755&client=summon |