View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Communicating treatment risks and benefits to cancer patients: a systematic review of communication methods.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Communicating treatment risks and benefits to cancer patients: a systematic review of communication methods.
Authors: van de Water, L. F. (AUTHOR), van Kleef, J. J. (AUTHOR), Dijksterhuis, W. P. M. (AUTHOR), Henselmans, I. (AUTHOR), van den Boorn, H. G. (AUTHOR), Vaarzon Morel, N. M. (AUTHOR), Schut, K. F. (AUTHOR), Daams, J. G. (AUTHOR), Smets, E. M. A. (AUTHOR), van Laarhoven, H. W. M. (AUTHOR)
Source: Quality of Life Research. Jul2020, Vol. 29 Issue 7, p1747-1766. 20p. 1 Diagram, 4 Charts.
Subjects: Cancer patients, Meta-analysis, Quality of life, Risk communication, Visual communication
Abstract: Purpose: Cancer patients are increasingly involved in decision-making processes. Hence, clinicians need to inform patients about the risks and benefits of different treatment options in order for patients to make well informed decisions. The aim of this review is to determine the effects of methods of communicating prognostic information about (1) disease progression (survival, progression, recurrence and remission), (2) side effects and complications and (3) health-related quality of life (HRQL) on cognitive, affective and behavioral outcomes in cancer patients.Methods: A literature search was performed to select articles that were published up to  November 2019 and that examined verbal and/or visual risk communication interventions in an oncological clinical setting.Results: The search yielded 14,875 studies; 28 studies were ultimately included. For disease progression information, we found that framing affects treatment choice. Furthermore, limiting the amount of progression information in a graphical display could benefit patients' understanding of risks and benefits. For prognostic information about side effects and complications, precise and defined risk information was better understood than information presented in words. When displaying HRQL data, no consensus was found on which graph type to use.Conclusion: Great heterogeneity in the results and methodology and in the compared communication formats precluded us from drawing any further conclusions. Practical implications for clinicians are to consider the effects that different types of framing might have on the patient and to not rely exclusively on words to describe risks, but rather include at least some form of numbers or visualization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Quality of Life Research is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Description
Abstract:<bold>Purpose: </bold>Cancer patients are increasingly involved in decision-making processes. Hence, clinicians need to inform patients about the risks and benefits of different treatment options in order for patients to make well informed decisions. The aim of this review is to determine the effects of methods of communicating prognostic information about (1) disease progression (survival, progression, recurrence and remission), (2) side effects and complications and (3) health-related quality of life (HRQL) on cognitive, affective and behavioral outcomes in cancer patients.<bold>Methods: </bold>A literature search was performed to select articles that were published up to  November 2019 and that examined verbal and/or visual risk communication interventions in an oncological clinical setting.<bold>Results: </bold>The search yielded 14,875 studies; 28 studies were ultimately included. For disease progression information, we found that framing affects treatment choice. Furthermore, limiting the amount of progression information in a graphical display could benefit patients' understanding of risks and benefits. For prognostic information about side effects and complications, precise and defined risk information was better understood than information presented in words. When displaying HRQL data, no consensus was found on which graph type to use.<bold>Conclusion: </bold>Great heterogeneity in the results and methodology and in the compared communication formats precluded us from drawing any further conclusions. Practical implications for clinicians are to consider the effects that different types of framing might have on the patient and to not rely exclusively on words to describe risks, but rather include at least some form of numbers or visualization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:09629343
DOI:10.1007/s11136-020-02503-8