Perception of Helpfulness of a Question Prompt Sheet Among Cancer Patients Attending Outpatient Palliative Care

Improving communication and patient information recall via a question prompt list: randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Patient-surgeon communication is an important component of the success of a consultation and is known to impact patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate whether a document called a question prompt list, containing suggested questions that a patient may like to ask their doctor, improved communication.

METHODS

A prospective RCT was conducted from October 2021 to October 2022 at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, Australia. Patients 16 years or older, seeing a general surgeon for a pre-surgical consultation, not requiring a translator, were randomized to receive a question prompt list (intervention) or standard care without a question prompt list (control). The primary outcomes were number of questions asked, talk time, and mutual eye gaze. Secondary outcomes were patient recall of information, anxiety, and consultation duration. Randomization was achieved using a computer program, with allocation concealment by opaque sequentially numbered envelopes. Patients were blinded to study group; surgeons were aware of study group, but blinded to outcomes.

RESULTS

Patients (59) were randomly allocated to receive the question prompt list (31) or to the control group (28). A patient from the intervention group withdrew before consultation, resulting in 58 patients being included in the analysis. In the question prompt list consultations, 24 per cent more questions were asked (incidence rate ratio = 1.25, 95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 1.42; P = 0.001). The intervention group recalled 9 per cent more items than the control group (incidence rate ratio = 1.09, 95 per cent c.i. 1.02 to 1.17; P = 0.012). The control group were 26 per cent less likely to correctly recall information about surgical treatment (OR = 0.26, 95 per cent c.i. 0.10 to 0.68; P = 0.006). No statistically significant differences between study arms for talk time, mutual eye gaze, anxiety, or consultation duration were demonstrated.

CONCLUSION

The question prompt list was associated with increased question asking and greater patient recall of medical information. It did not increase patient anxiety or consultation duration.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12623000089639 (http://www.ANZCTR.org.au).

Optimizing the design and implementation of question prompt lists to support person-centred care: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Question prompt lists (QPLs) are lists of questions that patients may want to discuss with clinicians. QPLs support person-centred care and have been associated with many beneficial outcomes including improved patient question-asking, and the amount and quality of the information provided by clinicians. The purpose of this study was to review published research on QPLs to explore how QPL design and implementation can be optimized.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Joanna Briggs Database from inception to 8 May 2022, for English language studies of any design that evaluated QPLs. We used summary statistics and text to report study characteristics, and QPL design and implementation.

RESULTS

We included 57 studies published from 1988 to 2022 by authors in 12 countries on a range of clinical topics. Of those, 56% provided the QPL, but few described how QPLs were developed. The number of questions varied widely (range 9-191). Most QPLs were single-page handouts (44%) but others ranged from 2 to 33 pages. Most studies implemented a QPL alone with no other accompanying strategy; most often in a print format before consultations by mail (18%) or in the waiting room (66%). Both patients and clinicians identified numerous benefits to patients of QPLs (e.g., increased patient confidence to ask questions, and patient satisfaction with communication or care received; and reduced anxiety about health status or treatment). To support use, patients desired access to QPLs in advance of clinician visits, and clinicians desired information/training on how to use the QPL and answer questions. Most (88%) studies reported at least one beneficial impact of QPLs. This was true even for single-page QPLs with few questions unaccompanied by other implementation strategies. Despite favourable views of QPLs, few studies assessed outcomes amongst clinicians.

CONCLUSION

This review identified QPL characteristics and implementation strategies that may be associated with beneficial outcomes. Future research should confirm these findings via systematic review and explore the benefits of QPLs from the clinician's perspective.

PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Following this review, we used the findings to develop a QPL on hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and interviewed women and clinicians about QPL design including content, format, enablers and barriers of use, and potential outcomes including beneficial impacts and possible harms (will be published elsewhere).

Helpfulness of Question Prompt Sheet for Patient-Physician Communication Among Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

There are few robust evaluations of disease-specific question prompt sheets (QPS) in patient-physician communication among patients with advanced cancer.

Objective

To compare the patient perception of helpfulness, global evaluation, and preference for the QPS vs a general information sheet (GIS), and to examine the effect of the QPS on participants' anxiety, participants' speaking time, number of questions asked, and length of the clinical encounter.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This controlled, double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted at an outpatient palliative and supportive care clinic in a cancer center in the US. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had a cancer diagnosis, and were undergoing their first outpatient consultation visit with a palliative care physician from September 1, 2017, to May 31, 2019. Data analysis used a modified intention-to-treat design. Data were analyzed from May 18 to June 27, 2022.

Intervention

QPS, a 25-item list of questions developed by expert palliative care clinicians using a Delphi process and tested among ambulatory advanced cancer patients. The control was GIS, generic information material given routinely to patients seen at the supportive care clinic.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was patient perception of helpfulness. Secondary outcomes included global evaluation and preference of QPS compared with GIS immediately after the encounter.

Results

A total of 130 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.6 [13.3] years; 79 [60.8%] female) were randomized to receive either QPS (67 patients [51.5%]) or GIS (63 patients [48.5%]). Patients considered QPS and GIS equally helpful, with no statistically significant difference (mean [SD] helpfulness score, 7.2 [2.3] points vs 7.1 [2.7] points; P = .79). The QPS group, compared with the GIS group, had a higher global positive view of the material (mean [SD] global perception score, 7.1 [1.3] vs 6.5 [1.7]; P = .03) and felt it prompted them more to generate new questions (mean [SD] rating, 7.0 [2.9] vs 5.3 [3.5]; P = .005). Of 47 patients asked their preference between the items, more participants preferred the QPS to the GIS in communicating with their physicians (24 patients [51.1%] vs 7 patients [14.9%]; P = .01) at the 4-week follow-up. No significant differences between the QPS and GIS groups were observed regarding participant anxiety, speaking time, number of questions asked, or consultation length (eg, mean [SD] anxiety rating, 2.3 [3.7] vs 1.6 [2.7]; P = .19).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, participants perceived both QPS and GIS as equally helpful, but they had a more positive global view of and preferred the QPS. QPS facilitated generation of new questions without increasing patient anxiety nor prolonging the consultation. The findings provide support for increased adoption and integration of QPS into routine oncologic care.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03287492.

Effects of a Patient Question Prompt List on Question Asking and Self-Efficacy During Outpatient Palliative Care Appointments

CONTEXT

Question prompt lists (QPLs) promote participation during medical appointments, including in the context of serious illness care. However, no studies have used parameters of a theoretical framework to examine the effects of QPL use in outpatient palliative care.

OBJECTIVES

The current pilot randomized controlled trial evaluated use of a 25-question QPL during initial outpatient palliative care appointments. We applied tenets of Self-Efficacy Theory to investigate how use of a QPL affected appointment participation and perceived self-efficacy.

METHODS

Participants were patients and care partners attending the patient's first palliative care appointment. Participants either received a QPL before the appointment (n = 29 appointments) or usual care (n = 30 appointments). Audio recordings of appointments were coded for total questions asked. Participants reported perceived self-efficacy in question asking pre- and postappointment. Analysis of variance was used to compare appointment participation between study conditions, and a linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in ratings of perceived self-efficacy.

RESULTS

Participants who received the QPL did not ask significantly more questions compared to participants in usual-care appointments. There was a main effect of time on self-efficacy in question asking, such that self-efficacy increased from pre- to postappointment, but there was no effect of the intervention.

CONCLUSION

Despite their promise in previous studies, results of the current study suggest that QPLs may lack potency to shift patient and care partner question asking in palliative care appointments, and that other mechanisms outlined in Self-Efficacy Theory may characterize the relation between question asking and self-efficacy.

Information needs and development of a question prompt sheet for upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation: A mixed methods study

Background

People with upper extremity (UE) amputations report receiving insufficient information about treatment options. Furthermore, patients commonly report not knowing what questions to ask providers. A question prompt sheet (QPS), or list of questions, can support patient-centered care by empowering patients to ask questions important to them, promoting patient-provider communication, and increasing patient knowledge. This study assessed information needs among people with UE amputations about UE vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) and developed a UE VCA-QPS.

Methods

This multi-site, cross-sectional, mixed-methods study involved in-depth and semi-structured interviews with people with UE amputations to assess information needs and develop a UE VCA-QPS. Qualitative data were analyzed by thematic analysis; quantitative data were analyzed by descriptive statistics. The initial UE VCA-QPS included 130 items across 18 topics.

Results

Eighty-nine people with UE amputations participated. Most were male (73%), had a mean age of 46 years, and had a unilateral (84%) and below-elbow amputation (56%). Participants desired information about UE VCA eligibility, evaluation process, surgery, risks, rehabilitation, and functional outcomes. After refinement, the final UE VCA-QPS included 35 items, across 9 topics. All items were written at a ≤ 6th grade reading level. Most semi-structured interview participants (86%) reported being ‘completely’ or ‘very’ likely to use a UE VCA-QPS.

Conclusion

People with UE amputations have extensive information needs about UE VCA. The UE VCA-QPS aims to address patients’ information needs and foster patient-centered care. Future research should assess whether the UE VCA-QPS facilitates patient-provider discussion and informed decision-making for UE VCA.

Effectiveness of question prompt lists in patients with breast cancer: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of a question prompt list (QPL) in decision self-efficacy, decision-making participation, patient-physician communication, decisional conflict or regret, and health status in patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

A total of 240 patients with breast cancer were randomly assigned to a QPL group or control group (n = 120 each). The intervention and control groups received an additional educational QPL booklet and routine care, respectively.

RESULTS

The intervention group exhibited significant improvements in decision self-efficacy, perceived patient-physician interactions, and patient-physician communication compared with the control group. Multilevel modeling analyses revealed significant group-time interaction effects on decision self-efficacy (β = 9.99, P < 0.01), perceived patient-physician interactions (β = 8.10, P < 0.01), patient-physician communication (β = 5.02, P < 0.01), and anxiety status (β = -3.78, P < 0.05). The QPL intervention exerted more favorable effects than routine care, with repeated measurements of the same patients and the data of patients under the care of the same surgeons accounted for.

CONCLUSIONS

The QPL intervention exerted multidimensional effects on decision-making outcomes among patients with breast cancer.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians can integrate a QPL into routine care for patients with breast cancer.

Question prompt lists to improve communication between cancer patients and healthcare professionals

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This literature review sets out to summarize knowledge on the impact of question prompt lists (QPLs) on patient-physician communication in oncology and to provide an account of current research on the development, adaptation, and implementation of this type of communication tool.

RECENT FINDINGS

Provided with a QPL, patients seem to ask more questions, in particular on sensitive issues like those around the end-of-life period and they recall the information provided better. There is a need to adapt QPLs, taking account of divergences in attitudes towards illness, participation in decision-making, and discussions about the illness prognosis across cultures. QPLs may also need to be tailored to specific concerns of patients at the different stages in the care trajectory and to the particularities of each cancer type. These adaptations contribute to the effectiveness of the tool because they make it possible to tailor it to the challenges and constraints experienced in clinical practice.

SUMMARY

QPLs are designed to enhance patients' communication with their physicians. Further research is required to develop QPLs suited to each cultural and clinical setting, involving health professionals so as to facilitate the implementation of these tools in routine practice.

Non-specialist palliative care - question prompt list preparation: patient, family and clinician experiences

OBJECTIVES

Question prompt lists (QPLs) support patients and family to ask questions they consider important during conversations with clinicians. We aimed to evaluate how a QPL developed for specialist palliative care is used during consultations and is perceived by patients and family, and how non-specialist clinicians would use the QPL. We further developed the QPL using these perspectives.

METHODS

The QPL is part of a conversation guide on palliative care. Patients and family were asked to select topics and questions before consultation with a palliative care consultant. This qualitative study (2016-2018) included 18 interviews with patients and family who had used the QPL, 17 interviews with non-specialist clinicians and 32 audiotaped consultations with palliative care consultants. The data were analysed thematically and iteratively to adjust the QPL accordingly.

RESULTS

All participants considered the QPL elaborate, but recommended keeping all content. Patients and family found that it helps to structure thoughts, ask questions and regain a sense of control. They also felt the QPL could support them in gathering information. Although it could evoke strong emotions, their real challenge was being in the palliative phase. Clinicians considered the QPL especially helpful as an overview of possible discussion topics. During audiotaped consultations, topics other than those selected were also addressed.

CONCLUSION

By using the QPL, patients and family felt empowered to express their information needs. Its use may not be as unsettling as clinicians assume. Nevertheless, clinicians who hand out the QPL should introduce the QPL properly to optimise its use.

Helping Patients Communicate With Oncologists When Cancer Treatment Resistance Occurs to Develop, Test, and Implement a Patient Communication Aid: Sequential Collaborative Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Most cancer-related deaths result from disseminated diseases that develop resistance to anticancer treatments. Inappropriate communication in this challenging situation may result in unmet patient information and support needs. Patient communication aids such as question prompt lists (QPLs) may help.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to develop and pilot-test a specific QPL in the following two contrasting clinical contexts in France after cancer resistance has developed: triple-negative and luminal B metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and metastatic uveal melanoma (MUM).

METHODS

A sequential study design with a mixed methods collaborative approach will be applied. The first step aims to build a specific QPL. Step 1a will explore oncologist-patient communication issues from oncology professionals' interviews (n=20 approximately). Step 1b will appraise information and support needs experienced by patients with MBC or MUM both quantitatively (n=80) and qualitatively (n=40 approximately). These data will be used to develop and pilot-test a QPL specific to patients with cancer experiencing initial or acquired resistance to treatment. We expect to obtain a core QPL that comprises questions and concerns commonly expressed by patients with resistant cancer and is complemented by specific issues for either MBC or MUM cancer sites. In step 1c, 2 focus groups of patients with any type of metastatic cancer (n=4) and health care professionals (n=4) will be conducted to revise the content of a preliminary QPL and elaborate an acceptable and feasible clinical implementation. In step 1d, the content of the QPL version 1 and implementation guidance will be validated using a Delphi process. Step 2 will pilot-test the QPL version 1 in real practice with patients with MBC or MUM (n=80). Clinical utility will be assessed by comparing responses to questionnaires administered in step 1b (QPL-naive historical control group) and step 2 (QPL intervention group).

RESULTS

This study received grants in March and December 2019 and was approved by the French national ethics committee in July 2019. As of October 2021, interviews with oncology professionals have been conducted and analyzed (N=26 to reach saturation), and 39 and 27 patients with MBC and MUM, respectively, have been recruited.

CONCLUSIONS

A clinically and culturally tailored QPL is expected to facilitate patients' participation in consultations, improve oncologists' responses to patients' information and support needs, and thus foster patients' psychological adjustment to the diagnosis and follow-up of cancer resistance to treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04118062; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04118062.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/26414.

Last Year of Life Study-Cologne (LYOL-C) (Part II): study protocol of a prospective interventional mixed-methods study in acute hospitals to analyse the implementation of a trigger question and patient question prompt sheets to optimise patient-centred care

INTRODUCTION

The Last Year of Life Study-Cologne Part I (LYOL-C I) has identified general hospital units as the most important checkpoints for transitions in the last year of life of patients. Yet, satisfaction with hospitals, as reported by bereaved relatives, is the lowest of all health service providers. Thus, the LYOL-C Part II (LYOL-C II) focuses on optimising patient-centred care in acute hospitals for patients identified to be in their last year of life. LYOL-C II aims to test an intervention for hospitals by using a two-sided (healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients) trigger question-based intervention to 'shake' the system in a minimally invasive manner.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Prospective interventional mixed-methods study following a two-phase approach: phase I, individual interviews with HCPs and patient representatives to design the intervention to maximise ease of implementation and phase II, exploratory study with two arms and a prepost design with patients in their last year of life. The intervention will consist of the Surprise Question and the German version of the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT-DE) for HCPs to identify patients and provide patient-centred care, plus question prompt sheets for patients, encouraging them to initiate discussions with their HCPs. Data on transitions, changes in therapy, quality of care, palliative care integration and death of patients will be analysed. Furthermore, a staff survey (pre/post) and guided interviews with staff, patients and relatives (post) will be conducted. Finally, a formative socioeconomic impact assessment to provide evidence regarding the sustainability of the intervention will be performed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Cologne (#20-1431). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

DRKS00022378.

A Question Prompt List for Advanced Cancer Patients Promoting Advance Care Planning: A French Randomized Trial

CONTEXT

Advance care planning is essential to enable informed medical decisions to be made and to reduce aggressiveness in end-of-life (EOL) care.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore whether a question prompt list (QPL) adapted to French language and culture could promote discussions, particularly on prognosis and EOL issues, among advanced cancer patients attending outpatient palliative care (PC) consultations.

METHODS

In this multicenter randomized study, patients assigned to the intervention arm received a QPL to help them prepare for the next consultation one month later. The main inclusion criteria were advanced cancer patients referred to the PC team with an estimated life expectancy of less than one year. The primary endpoint was the number of questions raised, globally and by topic. The secondary objectives were the impact of the QPL on psychological symptoms, quality of life, satisfaction with care, and coping styles at two months.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 71) in the QPL arm asked more questions (mean 21.8 vs. 18.2, P = 0.03) than patients in the control arm (n = 71), particularly on PC (5.6 vs. 3.7, P = 0.012) and EOL issues (2.2 vs. 1, P = 0.018) but not on prognosis (4.3 vs. 3.6, not specified). At two months, there was no change in anxiety, depression, or quality of life in either arm; patient satisfaction with doctors' technical skills was scored higher (P = 0.024), and avoidance coping responses were less frequent (self-distraction, P = 0.015; behavioral disengagement, P = 0.025) in the QPL arm.

CONCLUSION

Questions on PC and EOL issues in outpatient PC consultations were more frequent, and patient satisfaction was better when a QPL was made available before the consultation.

Cancer Patients' Perception of Usefulness of Wearable Exercise Trackers

OBJECTIVE

To determine the feasibility and perception of usefulness of wearable trackers in inpatient and outpatient cancer rehabilitation patients.

DESIGN

Prospective study.

SETTING

Acute inpatient rehabilitation and outpatient clinic at a tertiary cancer center.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult cancer patients (N = 100).

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were provided with wearable trackers for the duration of the study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Survey regarding feasibility (as defined as equal or more than two-thirds of participants reporting use of the wearable tracker) and usefulness of the wearable tracker and Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS-FS) in both inpatient and outpatient populations. Activity minutes, number of steps, heart rate, and sleep data were collected from the wearable tracker.

RESULTS

Patients reported the use of a wearable tracker is feasible, with 48/50 (96%) outpatients and 47/50 (94%) inpatients reported wearing the wearable tracker daily and 37/49 (76%) outpatients and 29/50 (58%) inpatients reported that they would continue to wear the wearable tracker after this study. The majority of cancer patients (41/49 [84%] of outpatient and 33/50 [66%] of inpatient patients) reported that the wearable tracker was useful and 41/49 (84%) outpatients and 27/50 (54%) inpatients perceived the wearable tracker as helping to increase physical activity.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of wearable trackers in cancer patients is feasible and patients perceive wearable trackers as useful in both the inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation setting. Physical activity in these patients was better in the outpatient population, as expected because of less medical acuity.

Does a renal diet question prompt sheet increase the patient centeredness of renal dietitian outpatient consultations?

OBJECTIVE

Effective communication is fundamental to helping patients change behaviour. Few studies have operationalised how to quantify and improve the patient centeredness of communication during the dietitian outpatient consultation. We sought to evaluate the impact of a renal diet question prompt sheet (QPS) on patient centeredness (PC) in dietitian outpatient clinics and describe the impact of a renal diet QPS on the volume and pattern of communication between dietitians (n = 4) and patients/carers (n = 24, n = 11).

METHODS

The Roter Interaction Analysis System was used to compute a PC index, the volume communication (number of questions and utterances) and categorise dietitian communication.

RESULTS

The QPS was associated with significant improvements in the PC of communication (p = 0.004 and p = 0.001), without increasing the volume of communication. The QPS was also associated with an increase in the total number of questions asked (p < 0.0001) especially from patients (p = 0.0009); and an increase in the volume of communication devoted to education and counselling (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study describes a promising intervention to increase the patient centeredness of dietetic consultations in an outpatient setting.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Whilst simple in design, the use of a QPS had a large effect on how patients and carers interact with the dietitian in the outpatient setting.

Pilot Trial of a Combined Oncologist-Patient-Caregiver Communication Intervention in Singapore

PURPOSE

High-quality end-of-life cancer care requires oncologists to communicate effectively and patients/caregivers to be participatory. However, most communication interventions target either but not both. We aimed to pilot a potentially disseminable combined oncologist-patient/caregiver intervention to improve oncologist empathic responses, discussions of prognosis and goals of care, and patient/caregiver participation. We assessed its feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy.

METHODS

Between June 2018 and January 2019, we conducted a pilot 2-arm cluster trial in Singapore, randomly assigning 10 oncologists in a 1:1 ratio to receive the combined intervention or usual care. Intervention arm oncologists received online communication skills training, and their patients received a brief prompt sheet before consultations. We audio recorded consultations with 60 patients with stage IV solid malignancy and analyzed 30 in the postintervention phase. The study was not powered for statistical significance.

RESULTS

Participation rates for oncologists and patients were 100% and 63%, respectively. All oncologists completed the online training within an average of 4.5 weeks; 73% of the patients selected at least 1 question in the prompt sheet. Compared with the control arm, intervention arm oncologists had more empathic responses in total (relative risk [RR], 1.66) and for every patient/caregiver negative emotion (RR, 2.01). Their consultations were more likely to involve discussions of prognosis (RR, 3.00) and goals of care, and their patients were more likely to ask a prognosis-related question (RR, 2.00; P > .05 for all).

CONCLUSION

The combined oncologist-patient/caregiver intervention is feasible and acceptable and has the potential to improve communication within consultations.

An early palliative care intervention can be confronting but reassuring: A qualitative study on the experiences of patients with advanced cancer

BACKGROUND

Intervention trials confirm that patients with advanced cancer receiving early palliative care experience a better quality of life and show improved knowledge about and use of palliative care services. To involve patients in future health-care decisions, health professionals should understand patients' perspectives. However, little is known about how patients' experience such interventions.

AIM

To explore advanced cancer patients' experiences with a structured early palliative care intervention, its acceptability and impact on the patients' life including influencing factors.

DESIGN

Qualitative content analysis of in-depth, semi-structured interviews.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Patients with various advanced cancer diagnoses were enrolled in a multicenter randomized controlled trial (NCT01983956), which investigated the impact of "Symptoms, End-of-life decisions, Network, Support," a structured early palliative care intervention, on distress. Of these, 20 patients who underwent the intervention participated in this study.

RESULTS

Participants received the intervention well and gained a better understanding of their personal situation. Patients reported that the intervention can feel "confronting" but with the right timing it can be confirming and facilitate family conversations. Patients' personal background and the intervention timing within their personal disease trajectory influenced their emotional and cognitive experiences; it also impacted their understanding of palliative care and triggered actions toward future care planning.

CONCLUSION

Early palliative care interventions like "Symptoms, End-of-life decisions, Network, Support" may provoke emotions and feel "confrontational" often because this is the first time when issues about one's end of life are openly discussed; yet, advanced cancer patients found it beneficial and felt it should be incorporated into routine care.

Development and preliminary results on the feasibility of a renal diet specific question prompt sheet for use in nephrology clinics

Background

Adherence to the diet prescription for chronic kidney disease is suboptimal. Interventions to improve dietary adherence suggest that improving communication between the patient and the health professional is fundamental to improving outcomes. Providing patients with a question prompt sheet prior to the consultation has been demonstrated to be an effective method for improving communication between patient and health professional. In the absence of a renal diet specific version, the aims of this study were to develop and test the feasibility of a renal diet specific question prompt sheet for use in nephrology clinics.

Methods

Phase one utilized social listening methodology, online content analysis and clinic observations to obtain an extensive list of frequently asked questions about the renal diet. Following refinement with health professionals, the draft question prompt sheet was then sent in Phase two to patients one week prior to their scheduled consultation with the renal dietitian. Feedback was obtained from patients, carers and dietitians using semi structured interviews post clinic consultation. Quantitative data was analyzed using counts and proportions, while free text responses were analyzed thematically.

Results

A total of 769 unique renal diet related questions were reduced to an 18-item question prompt sheet. Feedback from thirteen patients (six males), six carers and six dietitians involved in the preliminary feasibility study was overwhelmingly positive. The majority of patients found the question prompt sheet to be easy to understand and agreed it facilitated communication with the dietitian. All participants agreed that they would recommend use of question prompt sheet to other patients. Suggestions for future use included health professional training in use of the sheet, particularly about how to help patients prioritize their most important questions.

Conclusions

The 18-item renal diet question prompt sheet developed in this preliminary study appears to be a feasible tool for use in nephrology consultations especially by dietitians. Further research quantifying the impact on question asking and patient centeredness should be undertaken. In addition, user testing with patients from culturally diverse and low literacy backgrounds would be useful.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12882-019-1231-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Decisional control preferences among patients with advanced cancer: An international multicenter cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Understanding patients' decision control preferences is important in providing quality cancer care. Patients' decisional control preference can be either active (patients prefer to make decisions themselves), shared (collaborative between patient, their physician, and/or family), or passive (patients prefer that the decisions are made by either the physician and/or their family).

AIM

To determine the frequency and predictors of passive decision control preferences among advanced cancer patients. We also determined the concordance between actual decision-making and decision control preferences and its association with patient satisfaction.

DESIGN

In this cross-sectional survey of advanced cancer patients referred to palliative care across 11 countries, we evaluated sociodemographic variables, Control Preference Scale, and satisfaction with the decisions and care.

RESULTS

A total of 1490 participants were evaluable. Shared, active, and passive decision control preferences were 33%, 44%, and 23%, respectively. Passive decision control preferences (odds ratio, p value) was more frequent in India (4.34, <0.001), Jordan (3.41, <0.001), and France (3.27, <0.001). Concordance between the actual decision-making and decision control preferences was highest in the United States ( k = 0.74) and lowest in Brazil (0.34). Passive decision control preference was significantly associated with (odds ratio per point, p value) better performance status (0.99/point, 0.017), higher education (0.64, 0.001), and country of origin (Brazil (0.26, <0.0001), Singapore (0.25, 0.0003), South Africa (0.32, 0.0002), and Jordan (2.33, 0.0037)).

CONCLUSION

Passive decision control preferences were less common (23%) than shared and active decision control preference even among developing countries. Significant predictors of passive decision control preferences were performance status, education, and country of origin.