Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007 Jul 18;2007(3):CD006011.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006011.pub2.

Methods of communicating a primary diagnosis of breast cancer to patients

K Lockhart  1 , I Dosser, S Cruickshank, C Kennedy
Affiliations

Methods of communicating a primary diagnosis of breast cancer to patients

K Lockhart et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: The method of delivering a diagnosis of breast cancer to women has the potential to impact on their level of interpretation, patient recall and satisfaction.

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of different methods when used to communicate a primary diagnosis of breast cancer to women.

Search strategy: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register on 7 September 2006, Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group on 27 October 2006, MEDLINE (1966 to present), CINAHL (1982 to present), EMBASE OVID (1980 to present), British Nursing Index (Jan 1984 to present), PsycInfo (1967 to present), Dissertation Abstracts International (2004 to 2006), Library and Info Science Abstracts (LISA) (1969 to present), ISI Web of Knowledge (conference abstracts) and reference lists of articles.

Selection criteria: We sought randomised controlled trials of women with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of breast cancer being given a diagnosis of primary breast cancer. Trials should also have used one or more of the following methods; face-to-face consultations, written information, telephone consultation, audio or video tapes of consultation.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion in the review. Studies were to be assessed using standardised data extraction and quality assessment forms.

Main results: The search strategies identified 2847 citations overall. A total of 30 citations appeared relevant however there were three duplicates which left 27 articles for further review. Articles reporting the same primary data accounted for 6 of the publications Brown 1997; Brown 1998; Brown 1999; Brown 2000; Hack 2000; Hack 2003 which left 23 original papers to be reviewed for inclusion. Of these, none met the inclusion criteria. Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality was therefore not possible.

Authors' conclusions: The review question remains unanswered as there were no randomised trials of methods of communicating a diagnosis of breast cancer to women. The authors have considered the possible reasons for the lack of research studies in this area and have considered that it is perhaps unethical to randomise women at such a vulnerable time such as waiting for a diagnosis. The design of ethically sensitive research to examine this topic needs to be explored to inform future practice. As some papers reviewed by the authors related to the first consultation visit, where treatment options are discussed, perhaps a review which focused on the methods of communication at the first consultation visit would provide more reliable evidence for the effectiveness of methods of communication and overcome the ethical dilemmas previously mentioned.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006011

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

References to studies excluded from this review

Ambler 1999 {published data only}
    1. Amber N, Rumsey N, Harcout D, Khan F, Cawthorn S, Barker J. Specialist nurse counsellor interventions at the time of diagnosis of breast cancer: comparing 'advocacy' with a conventional approach. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1999;29(2):445‐53. - PubMed
Brown 2000 {published data only}
    1. Brown R, Butow P, Dunn SM, Tattersall, MHN. Providing and addressing a pre consultation question prompt sheet benefits cancer patients and their oncologists. COSA Annual Scientific Meeting. 2000. [Ref ID: 5429 Abstract no. 145]
Bruera 2003 {published data only}
    1. Bruera E, Sweeney C, Willey J, Palmer JL, Tolley S, Rosales M, et al. Breast cancer patient perception of the helpfulness of a prompt sheet versus a general information sheet during outpatient consulation: A randomised controlled trial. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 2003;25(5):412‐8. - PubMed
Buddegberg 1991 {published data only}
    1. Buddeberg VC, Bergant A, Wolf, UC. How do breast cancer patients experience the participation in a prospective psychooncological research project [Wie erleben Brustkrebspetientinnen die Teilnahme an einer psychhonkologischen Verlaufsstudie?]. Zeitschrift fur Psycho‐somatische Medizin 1991;37:172‐84. - PubMed
Dowsett 2000 {published data only}
    1. Dowsett SM, Saul JL, Boutow PN, Dunn SM, Boyer MJ, Findlow R, et al. Communication styles in the cancer consultation: preferences for a patient‐centred approach. Psycho‐oncology 2000;9:147‐56. - PubMed
Dunn 1995 {published data only}
    1. Dunn SM, Butow P N, Griffin A.M, Tattersall MHN. Misunderstanding in cancer patients: poor communication or adaptive denial?. COSA 22nd Annual Scientific Meeting. 1995. [Ref ID: 4882 Reprint: In File Abstract: No. 9 RefRef ID: 4882 Reprint: In File Abstract: No. 9 RepriRef ID: 5429, Abstract No 145 Abstract: No. 9]
Geyer 1992 {published data only}
    1. Geyer S. Artifacts in 'limited prospective' designs? Testing confounding effects on response behaviour of women prior to breast surgery. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 1992;36(2):107‐16. - PubMed
Hack 1999 {published data only}
    1. Hack F, Pickles T, Bultz BD, Degner LF, Katz A, Davison BJ. Feasibility of an Audiotape Intervention for Patients with Cancer: A multicenter, randomized, controlled pilot study. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology 1999;17(2):1‐15.
Hack 2003 {published data only}
    1. Hack TF, Pickles T, Bultz BD, Ruether JD, Weir LM. Impact of providing audiotapes of primary adjuvant treatment consultations to women with breast cancer: a multisite, randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2003;21(22):4138‐44. - PubMed
Hoskins 2001 {published data only}
    1. Hoskins CN, Haber J, Budin WC, Cartwright‐Alcarese F, Kowalski MO, Panke J, et al. Breast cancer: education, counseling, and adjustment‐‐a pilot study. Psychological Reports 2001;89(3):677‐704. - PubMed
Liang 2002 {published data only}
    1. Liang W, Burnett CB, Rowland JH, Meropol NJ, Eggert L, Hwang Y, et al. Communication between physicians and older women with localised breast cancer: Implications for treatment and patient satisfaction. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2002;20(4):1008‐16. - PubMed
Lobb 2002 {published data only}
    1. Lobb E, Butow P, Meiser B, Barrat A, Kirk J, Gattas I, et al. The use of audiotapes in consultations with women from high risk breast cancer families: a randomised trial. Journal of Medical Genetics 2002;39(9):697‐704. - PMC - PubMed
Loge 1997 {published data only}
    1. Loge JH, Kaasa S, Hytten K. Disclosing the cancer diagnosis: the patients' experiences. European Journal of Cancer 1997;33(6):878‐82. - PubMed
Lowery 1993 {published data only}
    1. Lowery BJ, Jacobsen BS, DuCette J. Causal attribution, control, and adjustment to breast cancer. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology 1993;10(4):37‐54.
Mager 2002 {published data only}
    1. Mager WM, Andrykowski MA. Communication in the cancer 'bad news' consultation: patient perceptions and psychological adjustment. Psycho‐oncology 2002;11:35‐46. - PubMed
Maslin 1998 {published data only}
    1. Maslin A. Using an interactive video disk in breast cancer patient support. Nursing Times 1998;94(44):52‐5. - PubMed
Mast 2005 {published data only}
    1. Mast MS, Kindlimann A, Langwitz W. Recipients' perspective on breaking bad news: How you put it really makes a difference. Patient Education and Couseling 2005;58:244‐51. - PubMed
McWilliam 2000 {published data only}
    1. McWilliam CL, Brown JB, Stewart M. Breast cancer patients' experiences of patient‐doctor communication: a working relationship. Patient Education and Counseling 2000;39(2‐3):191‐204. - PubMed
Poole 2000 {published data only}
    1. Poole K, Lyne PA. The 'cues' to diagnosis: describing the monitoring activities of wmoen undergoing diagnostic investigations for breast disease. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2000;31(4):752‐8. - PubMed
Ravdin 2001 {published data only}
    1. Ravdin PM, Siminoff L, Hewlett J, Parker H, Mercer MB, Davis G. Evaluation of impact of communication tool generated by the computer progam, on patients with early breast cancer and their doctors. American Society of Clinical Oncology www.asco.org. 2001. [Abstract number 119]
Sepucha 2002 {published data only}
    1. Sepucha KR, Belkora JK, Mutchnick S, Esserman LJ. Consultation planning to help breast cancer patients prepare for medical consultations: Effect on comunication and satisfaction for patients and physicians. Journal of Clincal Oncology 2002;20(11):2696‐700. - PubMed
Stanton 1999 {published data only}
    1. Stanton AL, Danoff‐Burg S. Social comparison and adjustment to breast cancer: an experimental examination of upward affiliation and downward evaluation. Health Psychology 1999;18(2):151‐8. - PubMed
Ubhi 1996 {published data only}
    1. Ubhi SS, Wright S, Clarke L, Black S, Shaw P, Stotter A, et al. Anxiety in patients with symptomatic breast disease: effects of immediate versus delayed communication of results. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons England 1996;78:466‐9. - PMC - PubMed

Additional references

Brown 1997
    1. Brown R, Dunn S, Butow P. Meeting patient expectations in the cancer consultation. Annals of Oncology 1997;8:877‐82. - PubMed
Brown 1998
    1. Brown R, Gattellari M, Butow PN, Dunn SM, Tattersall MHN. Active patient participation in the cancer consultation: evaluation of a question prompt sheet. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 1998. [CCTR Ref ID 5087, Abstract no. 16]
Brown 1999
    1. Brown R, Butow PN, Boyer MJ, Tattersall MHN. Promoting patient participation in the cancer consultation: evaluation of a prompt sheet and question‐asking. British Journal of Cancer 1999;80:242‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Consort 2006
    1. Consort E‐checklist. http://www.consort‐statement.org/ accessed 20 January 2006.
Fallowfield 1991
    1. Fallowfield L Clark A. Breast Cancer. London: Routledge, 1991.
Galloway 1997
    1. Galloway S, Graydon J, Harrison D, Evans‐Boyden B, Palmer‐Wickham S, Burlein‐Hall S, et al. Informational needs of women with a recent diagnosis of breast cancer: development and initial testing of a tool. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1997;25:1175‐83. - PubMed
Greer 1991
    1. Greer S. Psychological responses to cancer and survival. Psychological Medicine 1991;21:43‐9. - PubMed
Hack 2000
    1. Hack T, Pickles T, Bultz B, Degner L, Ruether D, Weir L. Providing audiotapes of primary adjuvant treatment consultations to cancer patients: a multi‐centre randomized trial. Cochrane Controlled Trials Register 2000. [5417 abstract 11]
Iwamitsu 2005
    1. Iwamitsu Y, Shimoda K, Abe H, Tani T, Okawa M, Buck R. Anxiety, emotional suppression and psychological distress before and after breast cancer diagnosis. Psychosomatics 2005;46(1):19‐24. - PubMed
Jadad 1996
    1. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: is blinding necessary?. Controlled Clinical Trials 1996;17:1‐12. - PubMed
Lindop 2001
    1. Lindop E, Cannon S. Experiences of women with a diagnosis of breast cancer: a clinical pathway approach. European Journal of Oncology Nursing 2001;5(2):91‐9. - PubMed
Loge 1996
    1. Loge JH, Kaasa S, Hytten K. Disclosing the cancer diagnosis: The patient's experience. European Journal of Cancer 1996;33(6):878‐82. - PubMed
McPherson 2001
    1. McPherson CJ, Higginson IJ, Hearn J. Effective methods of giving information in cancer: A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Public Health Medicine 2001;23(3):227‐34. - PubMed
NBCC/NCCI 2003
    1. National Breast Cancer Centre and National Cancer Control Initiative. Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Psychosocial Care of Adults with Cancer. Camperdown, NSW: National Breast Cancer Centre, 2003.
NICE 2002
    1. National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Patient Centred Care. Improving Outcomes in Breast Cancer. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 2002:32‐6.
Parkin 2005
    1. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global Cancer Statistics, 2002. CA: a Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2005;55(2):74‐108. - PubMed
Scott 2003
    1. Scott JT, Harmsen M, Prictor MJ, Entwistle VA, Sowden AJ, Watt I. Recordings or summaries of consultations for people with cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001539] - DOI - PubMed
Scott J 2003
    1. Scott JT, Prictor MJ, Harmsen M, Broom A, Entwistle V, Sowden A, et al. Interventions for improving communication with children and adolescents about a family member's cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004511] - DOI - PubMed
WHO 2005
    1. World Health Organisation. Screening for Breast Cancer. http://www.who.int/cancer/detection/breastcancer/en/print.html (accessed 1 March 2005).

Publication types