Predictors of physicians' communication performance in a decision-making encounter with a simulated advanced-stage cancer patient: A longitudinal study

Measurement of uncertainty tolerance revisited

INTRODUCTION

Uncertainty tolerance (UT) is attracting increasing attention in medical education due to the numerous challenges associated with uncertainty in professional life. Inconsistencies in analysing the relationship between UT and moderators may arise from inadequate measurement methods. Most instruments were formulated before the most widely accepted framework was published. Our aim was to investigate the validity of an UT scale using an actual framework to corroborate with better and accurate instruments.

METHODS

A total of 1052 students were invited. Various psychometric methods were used to explore validity of the TAMSAD scale in light of actual framework. Classic exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were performed. Secondly, content item classification was triangulated with exploratory graph analysis (EGA), and the new EFA, CFA, and cognitive diagnostic modelling (CDM) analysis were conducted. The reliability was calculated using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega.

RESULTS

A total of 694 students (65.9%) responded to the questionnaire. The reliability of the TAMSAD scale was 0.782. The initial EFA revealed no clear interpretable dimensions. The TAMSAD scale items can be classified into sources of uncertainty. The EGA has three dimensions, and the new EFA led to a 17-item TAMSAD scale with the following three dimensions: ambiguity, complexity, and probability. These dimensions lead to better adjustment fit indices in the new CFA and CDM analyses.

CONCLUSION

We found evidence that the TAMSAD scale can be considered a multidimensional scale, organised in terms of sources of uncertainty.

Identifying validity evidence for uncertainty tolerance scales: A systematic review

PURPOSE

Uncertainty tolerance (UT) is increasingly valued as a medical graduate attribute and broadly measured among medical student populations. However, the validity evidence underpinning UT scale implementation has not been summarised across studies. The present work evaluates UT scale validity evidence to better inform when, why and how UT scales ought to be used and to identify remaining validity evidence gaps.

METHODS

A literature search for psychometric studies of UT scales was completed in 2022. Records were included if they implemented one of the four most cited UT scales (i.e. Physicians' Reactions to Uncertainty scale 1990 [PRU1990] or 1995 [PRU1995], Tolerance for Ambiguity [TFA] scale or Tolerance of Ambiguity in Medical Students and Doctors scale [TAMSAD]) in a population of physicians and/or medial students and presented validity evidence according to the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing framework. Included studies were rated and analysed according to evidence for test content, response processes, internal structure, relations to other variables and consequences of testing.

RESULTS

Among the investigated scales, 'relations to other variables' and 'internal structure' were the most commonly reported forms of validity evidence. No evidence of 'response processes' or 'consequences of testing' was identified. Overall, the PRU1990 and PRU1995 demonstrated the strongest validity evidence, although evidence primarily related to physician populations.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the studied scales demonstrated evidence for all five sources of validity. Future research would benefit from assessing validity evidence for 'response processes' and 'consequences of testing' among physicians and medical students at different training/career stages to better understand UT construct conceptualisation in these populations. Until further and stronger validity evidence for UT scales is established, we caution against implementing UT scales outside of research settings (e.g. for higher stakes decision making).

Establishing the Competency Development and Talent Cultivation Strategies for Physician-Patient Shared Decision-Making Competency Based on the IAA-NRM Approach

Shared decision making (SDM) is a collaborative process involving patients and their healthcare workers negotiating to reach a shared decision about medical care. However, various physician stakeholders (attending physicians, medical residents, and doctors in post-graduate years) may have different viewpoints on SDM processes. The purpose of this study is to explore the core competence of physicians in performing SDM tasks and to investigate the significant competency development aspects/criteria by applying the literature research and expert interviews. We adopt the IAA (importance awareness analysis) technique for different stakeholders to evaluate the status of competency development aspects/criteria and to determine the NRM (network relation map) based on the DEMATEL (decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory) technique. The study combines the IAA and NRM methods and suggests using the IAA-NRM approach to evaluate the adoption strategies and common suitable paths for different levels of physicians. Our findings reveal that SDM perception and practice is the primary influencer of SDM competence development for all stakeholders. The current model can help hospital administrators and directors of medical education understand the diverse stakeholders’ perspectives on the core competence of SDM tasks and determine common development plans. It provides strategic directions for SDM competency development and talent cultivation programs.

Reliability of Uncertainty Tolerance Scales Implemented Among Physicians and Medical Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Uncertainty tolerance (UT) is a construct describing individuals' perceptions of, and responses to, uncertainty across their cognition, emotion, and behavior. Various UT scales have been designed for physician and medical student populations. However, links between UT and other variables (e.g., training stages) are inconsistent, raising concerns about scale reliability and validity. As reliability is a precondition for validity, a necessary first step in assessing UT scales' efficacy is evaluating their reliability. Accordingly, the authors conducted a meta-analysis of the reliability of UT scales designed for, and implemented among, physician and medical student populations.

METHOD

In 2020, the authors searched 4 electronic databases alongside a citation search of previously identified UT scales. They included English-language, peer-reviewed studies that implemented UT scales in physician and/or medical student populations and reported reliability evidence. A meta-analysis of studies' Cronbach's alphas evaluated aggregated internal consistency across studies; subgroup analyses evaluated UT scales by named scale, population, and item characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 4,124 records screened, 35 studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting 75 Cronbach's alphas. Four UT scales appeared in at least 3 included studies: Physicians' Reactions to Uncertainty scale 1990 (PRU1990) and 1995 (PRU1995) versions, Tolerance for Ambiguity scale (TFA), and Tolerance of Ambiguity in Medical Students and Doctors scale (TAMSAD). The scores from these scales ranged in reliability from very good (PRU1990: 0.832, PRU1995: 0.818) to respectable (TFA: 0.761, TAMSAD: 0.711). Aggregated internal consistency was significantly higher ( P < .001) among physicians (0.797) than medical students (0.711).

CONCLUSIONS

UT scales generally demonstrated respectable internal consistency when administered among physicians and medical students, yet the reliability among medical students was significantly lower. The authors caution against using UT scores for decision-making purposes (e.g., applicant selection, program evaluation), especially among medical student populations. Future research should explore the reasons underlying these observed population differences.

How does physicians' decisional conflict influence their ability to address treatment outcomes in a decision-making encounter with an advanced-stage cancer simulated patient? A descriptive study

OBJECTIVES

This descriptive study assesses how physicians' decisional conflict influences their ability to address treatment outcomes (TOs) in a decision-making encounter with an advanced-stage cancer simulated patient (SP).

METHODS

Physicians (N = 138) performed a decision-making encounter with the SP trained to ask for TOs information. The physicians' decisional conflict regarding patients' cancer treatments in general was assessed with the General Decisional Conflict Scale (Gen-DCS). The physicians' decisional conflict regarding the SP's cancer treatments was assessed with the Specific Decisional Conflict Scale (Spe-DCS). Physicians' ability to address TOs during the encounter was assessed with an interaction analysis system: the Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Patient Outcome Predictions (MD.POP). Weekly time spent with cancer patients was assessed with a questionnaire.

RESULTS

Physicians' Spe-DCS (β = -.21 ; p = .014) and weekly time spent with cancer patients (β = .22 ; p = .008) predicted the number of TOs addressed during the encounter. Spe-DCS scores predicted nearly all MD.POP dimensions (r = -.18 ; p = .040 to r = -.30 to p < .001) whereas Gen-DCS scores predicted nearly none MD.POP dimensions.

CONCLUSION

Physicians' specific decisional conflict interferes with their ability to address TOs in a decision-making encounter with an advanced-stage cancer SP.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Physicians should be trained to address TOs according to patient preferences, despite their own decisional conflict.

Decisional conflict of physicians during the decision-making process for a simulated advanced-stage cancer patient: an international longitudinal study with German and Belgian physicians

BACKGROUND

Decision making with advanced cancer patients is often associated with decisional conflict regarding treatment outcomes. This longitudinal multicenter study investigated German physicians' course of decisional conflict during the decision-making process for a Simulated advanced-stage cancer Patient (SP). Results were compared to a matched sample of Belgian physicians.

METHODS

German physicians' (n = 30) decisional conflict was assessed with the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) at baseline (t1) and after the four steps of a decision-making process: after reviewing the SP chart (t2), after viewing an assessment video interview with the SP (t3), after reviewing the team recommendations (t4), and after conducting the patient-physician decision-making interview (t5). The results were compared to those of a Belgian matched sample (n = 30).

RESULTS

Decisional conflict of German physicians decreased during the Decision-Making process (M = 53.5, SD = 11.6 at t2 to M = 37.8, SD = 9.6 at t5, p < 0.001). This was similar to the pattern in the Belgian sample (M = 53.5, SD = 12.5 at t2 to M = 34.1, SD = 10.9 at t5, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups for Decisional conflict end scores (p = 0.171). At the end of the Decision-making process, in both groups, still 43.3% of the physicians among each group (n = 13) reported a high Decisional Conflict (DCS > 37.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians' decisional conflict decreases during the decision-making process for an advanced cancer SP, though it remains at a high level. Culture, language and different health care systems have no influence on this process. The results emphasize the influence of psychosocial factors. We conclude that this issue should be considered more intensively in future research and in clinical care.

Training for Medical Oncologists on Shared Decision-Making About Palliative Chemotherapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Systemic treatment for advanced cancer offers uncertain and sometimes limited benefit, while the burden can be high. This study examines the effect of shared decision-making (SDM) training for medical oncologists on observed SDM in standardized patient assessments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized controlled trial comparing training with standard practice was conducted. Medical oncologists and oncologists-in-training (n = 31) participated in a video-recorded, standardized patient assessment at baseline (T0) and after 4 months (T1, after training). The training was based on a four-stage SDM model and consisted of a reader, two group sessions (3.5 hours each), a booster session (1.5 hours), and a consultation card. The primary outcome was observed SDM as assessed with the Observing Patient Involvement scale (OPTION12) coded by observers blinded for arm. Secondary outcomes were observed SDM per stage, communication skills, and oncologists' satisfaction with communication.

RESULTS

The training had a significant and large effect on observed SDM in the simulated consultations (Cohen's f = 0.62) and improved observed SDM behavior in all four SDM stages (f = 0.39-0.72). The training improved oncologists' information provision skills (f = 0.77), skills related to anticipating/responding to emotions (f = 0.42), and their satisfaction with the consultation (f = 0.53).

CONCLUSION

Training medical oncologists in SDM about palliative systemic treatment improves their performance in simulated consultations. The next step is to examine the effect of such training on SDM in clinical practice and on patient outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Systemic treatment for advanced cancer offers uncertain and sometimes limited benefit, while the burden can be high. Hence, applying the premises of shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended. SDM is increasingly advocated based on the ethical imperative to provide patient-centered care and the increasing evidence for beneficial patient outcomes. Few studies examined the effectiveness of SDM training in robust designs. This randomized controlled trial demonstrated that SDM training (10 hours) improves oncologists' performance in consultations with standardized patients. The next step is to examine the effect of training on oncologists' performance and patient outcomes in clinical practice.

Psychometric properties of the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in oncology practice

Background/Objective: This study sought to assess the psychometric properties of the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in patients with resected, non-metastatic cancer and eligible for adjuvant chemotherapy. Method: A total of 568 patients were recruited from a multi-institutional, prospective, transversal study. Patients answered the SDM-Q-9 after visiting their medical oncologist who, in turn, completed the SDM-Q-Physician version. Reliability, factorial structures [exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)], and convergent validity of the SDM-Q-9 scores were explored. Results: SDM-Q-9 showed a clear factorial structure, compatible with a strong and replicable general factor and a secondary group factor, in patients with resected, non-metastatic cancer. Total sum scores derived from the general factor showed good reliability in terms of omega coefficient: .90. The association between patient and physician perception of SDM was weak and failed to reach statistical significance. Males and patients over 60 years of age displayed the greatest satisfaction with SDM. Conclusions: SDM-Q-9 can aid in evaluating SDM from the cancer patients' perspective. SDM-Q-9 is helpful in studies examining patient perspectives of SDM and as an indicator of the degree of quality and satisfaction with health care and patient-physician relationship.

Communication about uncertainty and hope: A randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy of a communication skills training program for physicians caring for cancer patients

Background

Although previous studies have reported the efficacy of communication skills training (CST) programs, specific training addressing communication about uncertainty and hope in oncology has not yet been studied. This paper describes the study protocol of a randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy of a CST program aimed at improving physician ability to communicate about uncertainty and hope in encounters with cancer patients.

Methods/design

Physician participants will be randomly assigned in groups (n = 3/group) to a 30-h CST program (experimental group) or to a waiting list (control group). The training program will include learner-centered, skills-focused, practice-oriented techniques. Training efficacy is assessed in the context of an encounter with a simulated advanced stage cancer patient at baseline and after the CST for the experimental group, and after four months for the waiting-list group. Efficacy assessments will include communicational, psychological and physiological measures. Group-by-time effects will be analyzed using a generalized estimating equation (GEE). A power analysis indicated that a sample size of 60 (30 experimental and 30 control) participants will be sufficient to detect effects.

Discussion

The current study will aid in the development of effective CST programs to improve physician ability to communicate about uncertainty and hope in encounters with cancer patients.

Trial registration

US Clinical Trials Register NCT02836197.