We aimed to investigate effects of prognostic communication strategies on emotions, coping, and appreciation of consultations in advanced cancer.

For this experimental study, we created 8 videos of a scripted oncological consultation, only varying in prognostic communication strategies. Disease-naive individuals (n = 1036) completed surveys before and after watching 1 video, while imagining being the depicted cancer patient. We investigated effects of the type of disclosure (prognostic disclosure vs. communication of unpredictability vs. non-disclosure) and content of disclosure (standard vs. standard and best-case vs. standard, best- and worst-case survival scenarios; numerical vs. word-based estimates) on emotions, coping, and appreciation of consultations. Moderating effects of individual characteristics were tested.

Participants generally reported more satisfaction (p < .001) after prognostic disclosure versus communication of unpredictability and less uncertainty (p = .042), more satisfaction (p = .005), and more desirability (p = .016) regarding prognostic information after numerical versus word-based estimates. Effects of different survival scenarios were absent. Prognostic communication strategies lacked effects on emotions and coping. Significant moderators included prognostic information preference and uncertainty tolerance.

In an experimental setting, prognostic disclosure does not cause more negative emotions than non-disclosure and numerical estimates are more strongly appreciated than words. Oncologists’ worries about harming patients should not preclude disclosing (precise) prognostic information, yet sensitivity to individual preferences and characteristics remains pivotal.

This study aimed to validate the Japanese versions of the Trust in Oncologist Scale (TiOS-J) and the TiOS-Short Form (TiOS-SF-J).

A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted among cancer patients in Japan. The forward-backward translation method was used to develop the TiOS-J. The web-based survey was mailed to 633 people, of whom 309 responded. After 2 weeks, 103 among the 156 first-time respondents completed the second survey to verify the reliability of the retest method. The validity was evaluated by exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), Spearman’s correlation coefficients between the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire-Japanese, willingness to recommend the oncologist, trust in health care, and number of oncological consultations. To evaluate reliability, Cronbach’s α and test–retest correlation were calculated.

The theoretically driven four-factor model and the EFA-driven one-factor model of the full-form TiOS-J (18 items) did not result in an acceptable fit; however, CFA supported the one-dimensionality of the 5 items from the TiOS-SF-J (χ2 (5) = 12.36, p = 0.03, goodness-of-fit index = 0.984, adjusted goodness-of-fit index = 0.952, comparative fit index = 0.991, and root mean square error of approximation = 0.069). With regard to the reliability of TiOS-J and TiOS-SF-J, the Cronbach’s alpha values were 0.94 and 0.89, respectively; the test–retest values were 0.82 and 0.78.

This study indicated that the TiOS-J and TiOS-SF-J are valid and reliable instruments for measuring patients’ trust in their oncologists and can be used to assess trust in oncologists for both clinical and research purposes.

To systematically review and synthesize the patient–clinician communication experiences of individuals with ovarian cancer.

The CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases were reviewed for articles that described (a) original qualitative or mixed methods research, (b) the experiences of individuals with ovarian cancer, and (c) findings related to patient–clinician communication. Relevant data were extracted from study results sections, then coded for descriptive and analytical themes in accordance with Thomas and Harden's approach to thematic synthesis. Data were coded by two authors and discrepancies were resolved through discussion.

Of 1,390 unique articles, 65 met criteria for inclusion. Four descriptive themes captured participants’ experiences communicating with clinicians: respecting me, seeing me, supporting me, and advocating for myself. Findings were synthesized into three analytical themes: communication is analogous to caring, communication is essential to personalized care, and communication may mitigate or exacerbate the burden of illness.

Patient–clinician communication is a process by which individuals with ovarian cancer may engage in self-advocacy and appraise the extent to which they are seen, respected, and supported by clinicians. Strategies to enhance patient–clinician communication in the ovarian cancer care setting may promote patient perceptions of patient-centered care.

We investigated patients’ impressions of the effectiveness of treatment provided by health centre physicians. Were the patients’ expectations met, and were the consultations considered effective? Which factors affected consultation success?

The study was conducted in 16 municipalities in the Kanta-Häme region Finland in 2004. Primary healthcare services to these municipalities are provided by five health centres. The municipalities’ total population was 166 648 (31 December 2003).

The data were collected during telephone interviews, supplemented by a mail survey. The study population (2600) was drawn from the Finnish Population Information System by random sampling. A total of 1751 inhabitants participated in the study (response rate: 67%). The respondents were considered able to evaluate treatment effectiveness if they had visited a health centre physician because of an illness or an accident during the past 12 months. Seven hundred and twenty-nine respondents met these criteria.

Most respondents (73%) found that their treatment corresponded with their expectations. According to a logistic regression analysis, the factors that best explained whether the patient’s treatment expectations were met included the physician’s respect for the patient, the consultation duration and the reason for the visit. Of the respondents, 70% thought the consultation had been effective. Factors explaining consultation effectiveness included consultation duration, physician’s respect for the patient and whether the consultation was scheduled within three days. In conclusion, the physician–patient consultations seemed to be very good and clearly worth the effort. Notably, we observed that the same factors helped to explain whether the patient’s treatment expectations were met, and whether the patient found the consultation effective.