IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v10y2017i1d10.1007_s40271-016-0188-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Katherine Treiman

    (RTI International
    RTI International)

  • Lauren McCormack

    (RTI International)

  • Murrey Olmsted

    (RTI International)

  • Nancy Roach

    (Fight Colorectal Cancer)

  • Bryce B. Reeve

    (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

  • Christa E. Martens

    (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

  • Rebecca R. Moultrie

    (RTI International)

  • Hanna Sanoff

    (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Katherine Treiman & Lauren McCormack & Murrey Olmsted & Nancy Roach & Bryce B. Reeve & Christa E. Martens & Rebecca R. Moultrie & Hanna Sanoff, 2017. "Engaging Patient Advocates and Other Stakeholders to Design Measures of Patient-Centered Communication in Cancer Care," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(1), pages 93-103, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:10:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-016-0188-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-016-0188-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-016-0188-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-016-0188-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arora, Neeraj K., 2003. "Interacting with cancer patients: the significance of physicians' communication behavior," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(5), pages 791-806, September.
    2. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1999. "Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(5), pages 651-661, September.
    3. Takayama, Tomoko & Yamazaki, Yoshihiko & Katsumata, Noriyuki, 2001. "Relationship between outpatients' perceptions of physicians' communication styles and patients' anxiety levels in a Japanese oncology setting," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 53(10), pages 1335-1350, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Budych, Karolina & Helms, Thomas M. & Schultz, Carsten, 2012. "How do patients with rare diseases experience the medical encounter? Exploring role behavior and its impact on patient–physician interaction," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 154-164.
    2. Wade, Julia & Donovan, Jenny L. & Athene Lane, J. & Neal, David E. & Hamdy, Freddie C., 2009. "It's not just what you say, it's also how you say it: Opening the 'black box' of informed consent appointments in randomised controlled trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2018-2028, June.
    3. Wonjeong Chae & Dong-Woo Choi & Eun-Cheol Park & Sung-In Jang, 2021. "Improved Inpatient Care through Greater Patient–Doctor Contact under the Hospitalist Management Approach: A Real-Time Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-12, May.
    4. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    5. Paul C. Schroy III & Karen Emmons & Ellen Peters & Julie T. Glick & Patricia A. Robinson & Maria A. Lydotes & Shamini Mylvanaman & Stephen Evans & Christine Chaisson & Michael Pignone & Marianne Prout, 2011. "The Impact of a Novel Computer-Based Decision Aid on Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 93-107, January.
    6. Jaime Moore & Matthew Haemer & Nazrat Mirza & Ying Z Weatherall & Joan Han & Caren Mangarelli & Mary Jane Hawkins & Stavra Xanthakos & Robert Siegel, 2019. "Pilot Testing of a Patient Decision Aid for Adolescents with Severe Obesity in US Pediatric Weight Management Programs within the COMPASS Network," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-12, May.
    7. Kevin Mertz & Romil F. Shah & Sara L. Eppler & Jeffrey Yao & Marc Safran & Ariel Palanca & Serena S. Hu & Michael Gardner & Derek F. Amanatullah & Robin N. Kamal, 2020. "A Simple Goal Elicitation Tool Improves Shared Decision Making in Outpatient Orthopedic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(6), pages 766-773, August.
    8. Sarah-Maude Deschênes & Marie-Pierre Gagnon & France Légaré & Annie Lapointe & Stéphane Turcotte & Sophie Desroches, 2013. "Psychosocial Factors of Dietitians' Intentions to Adopt Shared Decision Making Behaviours: A Cross-Sectional Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-7, May.
    9. Clarissa Hsu & David T. Liss & Dominick L. Frosch & Emily O. Westbrook & David Arterburn, 2017. "Exploring Provider Reactions to Decision Aid Distribution and Shared Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(1), pages 113-126, January.
    10. Lee, Yin-Yang & Lin, Julia L., 2010. "Do patient autonomy preferences matter? Linking patient-centered care to patient-physician relationships and health outcomes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(10), pages 1811-1818, November.
    11. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    12. Underman, Kelly & Hirshfield, Laura E., 2016. "Detached concern?: Emotional socialization in twenty-first century medical education," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 94-101.
    13. Chen Zhang & Kevin Fiscella & Yu Liu, 2022. "Exploring the Role of Provider–Patient Communication in Women’s Sexual Health and Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Care in the Primary Care Settings in New York State of the United States," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-15, July.
    14. Carla Brailey & Brittany C. Slatton, 2024. "Centering Black Women’s Voices: Illuminating Systemic Racism in Maternal Healthcare Experiences," Societies, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-12, May.
    15. Ishikawa, Hirono & Hashimoto, Hideki & Kiuchi, Takahiro, 2013. "The evolving concept of “patient-centeredness” in patient–physician communication research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 147-153.
    16. K. D. Valentine & Ha Vo & Floyd J. Fowler Jr. & Suzanne Brodney & Michael J. Barry & Karen R. Sepucha, 2021. "Development and Evaluation of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: A Short Patient-Reported Measure," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(2), pages 108-119, February.
    17. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    18. Wirtz, Veronika & Cribb, Alan & Barber, Nick, 2006. "Patient-doctor decision-making about treatment within the consultation--A critical analysis of models," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 116-124, January.
    19. Kirsten J. McCaffery & Sian K. Smith & Michael Wolf, 2010. "The Challenge of Shared Decision Making Among Patients With Lower Literacy: A Framework for Research and Development," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(1), pages 35-44, January.
    20. Fenton, Anny T. & Elliott, Marc N. & Schwebel, David C. & Berkowitz, Zahava & Liddon, Nicole C. & Tortolero, Susan R. & Cuccaro, Paula M. & Davies, Suzy L. & Schuster, Mark A., 2018. "Unequal interactions: Examining the role of patient-centered care in reducing inequitable diffusion of a medical innovation, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 238-248.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:10:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-016-0188-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.