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

ABSTRACT 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.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To examine the feasibility and acceptability of routine provision of patient question prompt lists (QPLs) to promote patient participation and patient-clinician communication in medical consultations. Four cancer centres across NSW, Australia (two rural, two urban) were invited to participate, involving distribution of QPLs to patients seeing a medical or radiation oncologist, or palliative care clinician. Patients rated their satisfaction after their next consultation. Cancer specialists provided their views at the end of the study. Sixty-four percent (389/606) of patients attending consultations received a QPL. Of patients offered a QPL (426), 91% accepted. Of 139 patients surveyed post-consultation, 89% reported reading the QPL and, of these, 44% referred to the QPL during the consultation at least once. All of 10 cancer specialists providing their views post-implementation reported that QPL implementation in routine practice was feasible and did not strain resources. Cancer patients and cancer specialists showed support for routine dissemination of the QPL. For successful implementation of evidence-based tools we recommend promotion by local clinical champions, negotiation with clinic staff about dissemination methods, raised patient awareness through on-site project facilitators, media, consumer and support groups, and availability of resources in hard copy and via online sources.
    Patient Education and Counseling 07/2011; 86(2):252-8. DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2011.04.020 · 2.60 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Active participation and asking questions are important ways in which patients can ensure they understand what the doctor has said. This study evaluated a question prompt sheet designed to encourage patients to ask questions in the cancer consultation. Patients (n = 142) were randomised to receive (i) a question prompt sheet or (ii) a general sheet informing patients of services available through the regional Cancer Council. Recall of information was assessed in a structured interview 4-20 days after the consultation. Questionnaires to assess patient satisfaction and adjustment to cancer were sent by mail. The question prompt sheet had a significant effect in one content area: prognosis. Thirty-five percent of patients who received the question handout asked questions about prognosis compared to 16% of those receiving the information handout. The prompt sheet did not increase the mean number of questions asked overall. Age, in/out-patient status, gender and involvement preference were predictive of both number and duration of patient questions. A question prompt sheet has a limited but important effect on patient question asking behaviour in the cancer consultation.
    Annals of Oncology 04/1994; 5(3):199-204. · 6.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients often do not get the information they require from doctors and nurses. To address this problem, interventions directed at patients to help them gather information in their healthcare consultations have been proposed and tested. To assess the effects on patients, clinicians and the healthcare system of interventions which are delivered before consultations, and which have been designed to help patients (and/or their representatives) address their information needs within consultations. We searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library (issue 3 2006); MEDLINE (1966 to September 2006); EMBASE (1980 to September 2006); PsycINFO (1985 to September 2006); and other databases, with no language restriction. We also searched reference lists of articles and related reviews, and handsearched Patient Education and Counseling (1986 to September 2006). Randomised controlled trials of interventions before consultations designed to encourage question asking and information gathering by the patient. Two researchers assessed the search output independently to identify potentially-relevant studies, selected studies for inclusion, and extracted data. We conducted a narrative synthesis of the included trials, and meta-analyses of five outcomes. We identified 33 randomised controlled trials, from 6 countries and in a range of settings. A total of 8244 patients was randomised and entered into studies. The most common interventions were question checklists and patient coaching. Most interventions were delivered immediately before the consultations.Commonly-occurring outcomes were: question asking, patient participation, patient anxiety, knowledge, satisfaction and consultation length. A minority of studies showed positive effects for these outcomes. Meta-analyses, however, showed small and statistically significant increases for question asking (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.36)) and patient satisfaction (SMD 0.09 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.16)). There was a notable but not statistically significant decrease in patient anxiety before consultations (weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.56 (95% CI -7.10 to 3.97)). There were small and not statistically significant changes in patient anxiety after consultations (reduced) (SMD -0.08 (95%CI -0.22 to 0.06)), patient knowledge (reduced) (SMD -0.34 (95% CI -0.94 to 0.25)), and consultation length (increased) (SMD 0.10 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.25)). Further analyses showed that both coaching and written materials produced similar effects on question asking but that coaching produced a smaller increase in consultation length and a larger increase in patient satisfaction. Interventions immediately before consultations led to a small and statistically significant increase in consultation length, whereas those implemented some time before the consultation had no effect. Both interventions immediately before the consultation and those some time before it led to small increases in patient satisfaction, but this was only statistically significant for those immediately before the consultation. There appear to be no clear benefits from clinician training in addition to patient interventions, although the evidence is limited. Interventions before consultations designed to help patients address their information needs within consultations produce limited benefits to patients. Further research could explore whether the quality of questions is increased, whether anxiety before consultations is reduced, the effects on other outcomes and the impact of training and the timing of interventions. More studies need to consider the timing of interventions and possibly the type of training provided to clinicians.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 02/2007; DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD004565.pub2 · 5.94 Impact Factor