Communication Frameworks for Palliative Surgical Consultations: A Randomized Study of Advanced Cancer Patients

dc.contributor.authorBlumenthaler, Alisa N.
dc.contributor.authorRobinson, Kristen Ashlee
dc.contributor.authorHodge, Caitlin
dc.contributor.authorXiao, Lianchun
dc.contributor.authorLilley, Elizabeth J.
dc.contributor.authorGriffin, James F.
dc.contributor.authorWhite, Michael G.
dc.contributor.authorDay, Ryan
dc.contributor.authorTanco, Kimberson
dc.contributor.authorBruera, Eduardo
dc.contributor.authorBadgwell, Brian D.
dc.contributor.departmentSurgery, School of Medicine
dc.date.accessioned2024-12-13T16:25:04Z
dc.date.available2024-12-13T16:25:04Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.description.abstractObjective: To evaluate whether patients with advanced cancer prefer surgeons to use the best case/worst case (BC/WC) communication framework over the traditional risk/benefit (R/B) framework in the context of palliative surgical scenarios. Background: Identifying the patient's preferred communication frameworks may improve satisfaction and outcome measures during difficult clinical decision-making. Methods: In a video-vignette-based randomized, double-blinded study from November 2020 to May 2021, patients with advanced cancer viewed 2 videos depicting a physician-patient encounter in a palliative surgical scenario, in which the surgeon uses either the BC/WC or the R/B framework to discuss treatment options. The primary outcome was the patients' preferred video surgeon. Results: One hundred fifty-five patients were approached to participate; 66 were randomized and 58 completed the study (mean age 55.8 ± 13.8 years, 60.3% males). 22 patients (37.9%, 95% CI: 25.4%-50.4%) preferred the surgeon using the BC/WC framework, 21 (36.2%, 95% CI: 23.8%-48.6%) preferred the surgeon using the R/B framework, and 15 (25.9%, 95% CI: 14.6%-37.2%) indicated no preference. High trust in the medical profession was inversely associated with a preference for the surgeon using BC/WC framework (odds ratio: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.70-0.98, P = 0.03). The BC/WC framework rated higher for perceived surgeon's listening (4.6 ± 0.7 vs 4.3±0.9, P = 0.03) and confidence in the surgeon's trustworthiness (4.3 ± 0.8 vs 4.0 ± 0.9, P = 0.04). Conclusions: Surgeon use of the BC/WC communication framework was not universally preferred but was as acceptable to patients as the traditional R/B framework and rated higher in certain aspects of communication. A preference for a surgeon using BC/WC was associated with lower trust in the medical profession. Surgeons should consider the BC/WC framework to individualize their approach to challenging clinical discussions.
dc.eprint.versionAuthor's manuscript
dc.identifier.citationBlumenthaler AN, Robinson KA, Hodge C, et al. Communication Frameworks for Palliative Surgical Consultations: A Randomized Study of Advanced Cancer Patients. Ann Surg. 2023;278(5):e1110-e1117. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000005823
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1805/45038
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherWolters Kluwer
dc.relation.isversionof10.1097/SLA.0000000000005823
dc.relation.journalAnnals of Surgery
dc.rightsPublisher Policy
dc.sourcePMC
dc.subjectAged
dc.subjectCommunication
dc.subjectNeoplasms
dc.subjectPatients
dc.subjectPhysician-patient relations
dc.subjectSurgeons
dc.titleCommunication Frameworks for Palliative Surgical Consultations: A Randomized Study of Advanced Cancer Patients
dc.typeArticle
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Blumenthaler2023Communication-AAM.pdf
Size:
420.64 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
2.04 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: