Objective: To learn how to configure a patient communication aid (PCA) to facilitate shared decision-making (SDM) about treatment for advanced cancer.Methods: The PCA consists of education about... Show moreObjective: To learn how to configure a patient communication aid (PCA) to facilitate shared decision-making (SDM) about treatment for advanced cancer.Methods: The PCA consists of education about SDM, a question prompt list, and values clarification methods. Study 1. A first veersion was presented to 13 patients, 8 relatives and 14 bereaved relatives in interviews. Study 2. A second version was used by 18 patients in a pilot study. Patients and oncologists were interviewed, patients were surveyed, and consultations were audio-recorded.Results: Respondents reported that the aid facilitated patient control over information, raised choice awareness and promoted elaboration. Risks were identified, most importantly that the aid might upset patients. Also, some respondents reported that the PCA did not, or would not support decision making because they felt sufficiently competent, did not perceive a role for themselves, or did not perceive that the decision required elaboration.Conclusions: Opinions on the usefulness of the PCA varied. It was challenging to raise awareness about the presence of a choice, and to find a balance between comprehensive information and sensitivity.Practice implications: A future study should demonstrate whether the PCA can improve SDM, and whether this effect is stronger when oncologists receive training. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Show less
PurposeThe original 18-item, four-dimensional Trust in Oncologist Scale assesses cancer patients’ trust in their oncologist. The current aim was to develop and validate a short form version of the... Show morePurposeThe original 18-item, four-dimensional Trust in Oncologist Scale assesses cancer patients’ trust in their oncologist. The current aim was to develop and validate a short form version of the scale to enable more efficient assessment of cancer patients’ trust.MethodsExisting validation data of the full-length Trust in Oncologist Scale were used to create a short form of the Trust in Oncologist Scale. The resulting short form was validated in a new sample of cancer patients (n = 92). Socio-demographics, medical characteristics, trust in the oncologist, satisfaction with communication, trust in healthcare, willingness to recommend the oncologist to others and to contact the oncologist in case of questions were assessed. Internal consistency, reliability, convergent and structural validity were tested.ResultsThe five-item Trust in Oncologist Scale Short Form was created by selecting the statistically best performing item from each dimension of the original scale, to ensure content validity. Mean trust in the oncologist was high in the validation sample (response rate 86%, M = 4.30, SD = 0.98). Exploratory factor analyses supported one-dimensionality of the short form. Internal consistency was high, and temporal stability was moderate. Initial convergent validity was suggested by moderate correlations between trust scores with associated constructs.ConclusionsThe Trust in Oncologist Scale Short Form appears to efficiently, reliably and validly measures cancer patients’ trust in their oncologist. It may be used in research and as a quality indicator in clinical practice. More thorough validation of the scale is recommended to confirm this initial evidence of its validity. Show less
