Evaluation of Question-Listing at the Cancer Support Community

University of California, San Francisco, 3333 California Street, Suite 265, San Francisco, CA 94118 USA.
Translational Behavioral Medicine 06/2013; 3(2):162-71. DOI: 10.1007/s13142-012-0186-8
Source: PubMed


The Cancer Support Community (CSC) provides psychosocial support to people facing cancer in community settings. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the compatibility, effectiveness, and fidelity of the Situation-Choices-Objectives-People-Evaluation-Decisions (SCOPED) question-listing intervention at three CSC sites. Between August 2008 and August 2011, the Program Director at each CSC site implemented question-listing, while measuring patient distress, anxiety, and self-efficacy before and after each intervention. We analyzed the quantitative results using unadjusted statistical tests and reviewed qualitative comments by patients and the case notes of Program Directors to assess compatibility and fidelity. Program Directors implemented question-listing with 77 blood cancer patients. Patients reported decreased distress (p = 0.009) and anxiety (p = 0.005) and increased self-efficacy (p < 0.001). Patients and Program Directors endorsed the intervention as compatible with CSC's mission and approach and feasible to implement with high fidelity. CSC effectively translated SCOPED question-listing into practice in the context of its community-based psychosocial support services at three sites.

12 Reads
  • Source
    • "Use of HRA instruments could potentially facilitate timely identification of patients who may benefit from counseling or other interventions, but they may also disrupt history taking, and their impact on cost and quality outcomes is not well understood (Dickey, Gemson, and Carney 1999). The use of patient-generated written lists may facilitate timely attention to the patient's agenda and has led to improvements in patients' psychosocial and health outcomes (Kaplan, Greenfield, and Ware 1989; Rost et al. 1991; Stewart 1995; Belkora et al. 2013). Yet these tools could interfere with patient–clinician rapport building or, as others have found, serve to slow the timely progression of office visits (Schrager and Gaard 2009). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The use of physician office-based tools such as electronic health records (EHRs), health risk appraisal (HRA) instruments, and written patient reminder lists is encouraged to support efficient, high-quality, patient-centered care. We evaluate the association of exam room use of EHRs, HRA instruments, and self-generated written patient reminder lists with patient–physician communication behaviors, recommended preventive health service delivery, and visit length.Research Methods Observational study of 485 office visits with 64 primary care physicians practicing in a health system serving the Detroit metropolitan area. Study data were obtained from patient surveys, direct observation, office visit audio-recordings, and automated health system records. Outcome measures included visit length in minutes, patient use of active communication behaviors, physician use of supportive talk and partnership-building communication behaviors, and percentage of delivered guideline-recommended preventive health services for which patients are eligible and due. Simultaneous linear regression models were used to evaluate associations between tool use and outcomes. Adjusted models controlled for patient characteristics, physician characteristics, characteristics of the relationship between the patient and physician, and characteristics of the environment in which the visit took place.ResultsPrior to adjusting for other factors, visits in which the EHR was used on average were significantly (p < .05) longer (27.6 vs. 23.8 minutes) and contained fewer preventive services for which patients were eligible and due (56.5 percent vs. 62.7 percent) compared to those without EHR use. Patient written reminder lists were also significantly associated with longer visits (30.0 vs. 26.5 minutes), and less use of physician communication behaviors facilitating patient involvement (2.1 vs. 2.6 occurrences), but more use of active patient communication behaviors (4.4 vs. 2.6). Likewise, HRA use was significantly associated with increased preventive services delivery (62.1 percent vs. 57.0 percent). All relationships remained significant (p > .05) in adjusted models with the exception of that between HRA use and preventive service delivery.Dissemination and Implementation ImplicationsOffice-based tools intended to facilitate the implementation of desired primary care practice redesign are associated with both positive and negative cost and quality outcomes. Findings highlight the need for monitoring both intended and unintended consequences of office-based tools commonly used in primary care practice redesign.
    Health Services Research 08/2015; DOI:10.1111/1475-6773.12348 · 2.78 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Men with prostate cancer face preference-sensitive decisions when choosing among treatments with similar survival outcomes but different procedures, risks and potential complications. A decision-support intervention, 'Decision Navigation' assists men with prostate cancer to prepare a question list (consultation plan) for their doctors and provides them with a consultation summary and audio recording. A randomised controlled trial of Decision Navigation showed advantages over usual care on quantitative measures including confidence in decision-making and regret. Objective The aim of this study was to gain a qualitative understanding of patient's and doctor's perspectives on Decision Navigation. Methods Six patients who received Decision Navigation were purposively selected for interview out of 62 randomised controlled trial participants. All four doctors who consulted Navigated patients were interviewed. Interview data was analysed using framework analysis. Results Patients reported that planning for the consultation helped them to frame their questions, enabling them to participate in consultations and take responsibility for making decisions. They reported feeling more confident in the decisions made, having a written report of the key information and an audio recording. Patients considered routine information relating to side effects was inadequate. Doctors reported that consultation plans made them aware of patients' concerns and ensured comprehensive responses to questions posed. Doctors also endorsed implementing Decision Navigation as part of routine care. Conclusion Results suggest that Decision Navigation facilitated patients' involvement in treatment decision-making. Prostate patients engaging in preference-sensitive decision-making welcomed this approach to personalised tailored support.
    Psycho-Oncology 06/2014; DOI:10.1002/pon.3466 · 2.44 Impact Factor