A consultation training program for physicians for communication about complementary medicine with breast cancer patients: a prospective, multi-center, cluster-randomized, mixed-method pilot study

Susanne Blödt, Nadine Mittring, Lena Schützler, Felix Fischer, Christine Holmberg, Markus Horneber, Adele Stapf, Claudia M Witt, Susanne Blödt, Nadine Mittring, Lena Schützler, Felix Fischer, Christine Holmberg, Markus Horneber, Adele Stapf, Claudia M Witt

Abstract

Background: The aim was to develop and evaluate a training program for physicians for communicating with breast cancer patients about complementary medicine (CM).

Methods: In a cluster-randomized pilot trial eight breast cancer centers (two physicians per center) were randomized to either a complementary communication training program (9 h e-learning + 20 h on-site skills training) or to a control group without training. Each physician was asked to consult ten patients for whom he or she is not the physician in charge. We used mixed methods: Quantitative outcomes included physicians' assessments (empathy, complexity of consultation, knowledge transfer) and patients' assessments (satisfaction, empathy, knowledge transfer). For qualitative analyses, 15 (eight in the training and seven in the control group) videotaped consultations were analyzed based on grounded theory, and separate focus groups with the physicians of both groups were conducted.

Results: A total of 137 patients were included. Although cluster-randomized, physicians in the two groups differed. Those in the training group were younger (33.4 ± 8.9 vs. 40.0 ± 8.5 years) and had less work experience (5.4 ± 8.9 vs. 11.1 ± 7.4 years). Patient satisfaction with the CM consultation was relatively high on a scale from 0 to 24 and was comparable in the two groups (training group: 19.4 ± 4.6; control group 20.5 ± 4.1). The qualitative findings showed that physicians structured majority of consultations as taught during the training. Comparing only the younger and less CM experienced physicians, those trained in CM communication felt more confident discussing CM-related topics than those without training.

Conclusion: A CM communication-training program might be especially beneficial for physicians with less consulting experience when communicating about CM-related issues. A larger trial using more suitable quantitative outcomes needs to confirm this.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02223091 , date of registration: 7 February 2014.

Keywords: Breast cancer; Communication; Complementary and integrative medicine.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study design
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Patients’ assessment of the consultation for satisfaction, empathy and knowledge

References

    1. Horneber M, Bueschel G, Dennert G, Less D, Ritter E, Zwahlen M. How many cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Integr Cancer Ther. 2012;11(3):187–203. doi: 10.1177/1534735411423920.
    1. Baum M, Cassileth BR, Daniel R, Ernst E, Filshie J, Nagel GA, Horneber M, Kohn M, Lejeune S, Maher J, et al. The role of complementary and alternative medicine in the management of early breast cancer: recommendations of the European Society of Mastology (EUSOMA) Eur J Cancer. 2006;42(12):1711–1714. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.02.019.
    1. Greenlee H, Balneaves LG, Carlson LE, Cohen M, Deng G, Hershman D, Mumber M, Perlmutter J, Seely D, Sen A, et al. Clinical practice guidelines on the use of integrative therapies as supportive care in patients treated for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2014;2014(50):346–358. doi: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgu041.
    1. Tautz E, Momm F, Hasenburg A, Guethlin C. Use of complementary and alternative medicine in breast cancer patients and their experiences: a cross-sectional study. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(17):3133–3139. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.04.021.
    1. Oskay-Ozcelik G, Lehmacher W, Konsgen D, Christ H, Kaufmann M, Lichtenegger W, Bamberg M, Wallwiener D, Overkamp F, Diedrich K, et al. Breast cancer patients’ expectations in respect of the physician-patient relationship and treatment management results of a survey of 617 patients. Ann Oncol. 2007;18(3):479–484. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdl456.
    1. Juraskova I, Hegedus L, Butow P, Smith A, Schofield P. Discussing complementary therapy use with early-stage breast cancer patients: exploring the communication gap. Integr Cancer Ther. 2010;9(2):168–176. doi: 10.1177/1534735410365712.
    1. Huebner J, Muenstedt K, Prott FJ, Stoll C, Micke O, Buentzel J, Muecke R, Senf B. Online survey of patients with breast cancer on complementary and alternative medicine. Breast Care (Basel) 2014;9(1):60–63. doi: 10.1159/000360381.
    1. Vickers KA, Jolly KB, Greenfield SM. Herbal medicine: women’s views, knowledge and interaction with doctors: a qualitative study. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2006;6:40. doi: 10.1186/1472-6882-6-40.
    1. Meijerman I, Beijnen JH, Schellens JH. Herb-drug interactions in oncology: focus on mechanisms of induction. Oncologist. 2006;11(7):742–752. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.11-7-742.
    1. Corbin Winslow L, Shapiro H. Physicians want education about complementary and alternative medicine to enhance communication with their patients. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(10):1176–1181. doi: 10.1001/archinte.162.10.1176.
    1. Schofield P, Diggens J, Charleson C, Marigliani R, Jefford M. Effectively discussing complementary and alternative medicine in a conventional oncology setting: communication recommendations for clinicians. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;79(2):143–151. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.07.038.
    1. Ong LM, Visser MR, Lammes FB, de Haes JC. Doctor-patient communication and cancer patients’ quality of life and satisfaction. Patient Educ Couns. 2000;41(2):145–156. doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(99)00108-1.
    1. Hilaire DM. The need for communication skills training in oncology. J Adv Pract Oncol. 2013;4(3):168–171.
    1. Neumann M, Wirtz M, Bollschweiler E, Warm M, Wolf J, Pfaff H. Psychometric evaluation of the German version of the “Consultation and Relational Empathy” (CARE) measure at the example of cancer patients. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 2008;58(1):5–15. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-970791.
    1. Nicolai J, Demmel R, Hagen J. Rating scales for the assessment of empathic communication in medical interview (REM): scale development, reliability, and validity. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2007;14(4):367–375. doi: 10.1007/s10880-007-9081-8.
    1. Kriz D, Schmidt J, Nubling R. The satisfaction of relatives with service delivery of nursing homes for the elderly. Development of the screening-questionnaire ZUF-A-7. Pflege. 2006;19(2):88–96. doi: 10.1024/1012-5302.19.2.88.
    1. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. Grounded theory. Strategien qualitativer Forschung. 3. Bern: Hans Huber; 2010.
    1. Schuber C. Video analysis of practice and the practice of video analysis. Secting field and focus in videography. In: Knoblauch H, Schnettler B, Raab J, Soeffner H-G, editors. Video analysis: methodology and methods. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang; 2006. pp. 115–126.
    1. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–1288. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687.
    1. Sadeghi R, Sedaghat MM, Sha Ahmadi F. Comparison of the effect of lecture and blended teaching methods on students’ learning and satisfaction. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2014;2(4):146–150.
    1. Ferber J, Schneider G, Havlik L, Heuft G, Friederichs H, Schrewe FB, Schulz-Steinel A, Burgmer M. [In Process Citation]. Z Psychosom Med Psychother. 2014;60(4):310–323
    1. Barth J, Lannen P. Efficacy of communication skills training courses in oncology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(5):1030–1040. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdq441.
    1. de Hoop E, Teerenstra S, van Gaal BG, Moerbeek M, Borm GF. The “best balance” allocation led to optimal balance in cluster-controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(2):132–137. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.05.006.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe