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
Multicenter Study
. 2018 Jan 20;36(3):225-230.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.75.6288. Epub 2017 Nov 17.

Impact of Prognostic Discussions on the Patient-Physician Relationship: Prospective Cohort Study

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Impact of Prognostic Discussions on the Patient-Physician Relationship: Prospective Cohort Study

Joshua J Fenton et al. J Clin Oncol. .

Abstract

Purpose Some research has suggested that discussion of prognosis can disrupt the patient-physician relationship. This study assessed whether physician discussion of prognosis is associated with detrimental changes in measures of the strength of the patient-physician relationship. Methods This was a longitudinal cohort study of 265 adult patients with advanced cancer who visited 38 oncologists within community- and hospital-based cancer clinics in Western New York and Northern California. Prognostic discussion was assessed by coding transcribed audio-recorded visits using the Prognostic and Treatment Choices (PTCC) scale and by patient survey at 3 months after the clinic visit. Changes in the strength of the patient-physician relationship were computed as differences in patient responses to The Human Connection and the Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions scales from baseline to 2 to 7 days and 3 months after the clinic visit. Results Prognostic discussion was not associated with a temporal decline in either measure. Indeed, a one-unit increase in PTCC during the audio-recorded visit was associated with improvement in The Human Connection scale at 2 to 7 days after the visit (parameter estimate, 0.10; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.23) and 3 months after the visit (parameter estimate, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.35) relative to baseline. Standardized effect sizes (SES) associated with an increase of two standard deviations in the PTCC at each time point were consistent with small beneficial effects (SES, 0.14 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.29] at 2 to 7 days; SES, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.02 to 0.45] at 3 months), and lower bounds of CIs indicated that substantial detrimental effects of prognostic discussion were unlikely. Conclusion Prognostic discussion is not intrinsically harmful to the patient-physician relationship and may even strengthen the therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Epstein RM, Street RL, Jr: Patient-Centered Communication in Cancer Care: Promoting Healing and Reducing Suffering. Bethesda, MD, National Cancer Institute, 2007
    1. Epstein AS, Prigerson HG, O’Reilly EM, et al. : Discussions of life expectancy and changes in illness understanding in patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol 34:2398-2403, 2016 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gordon EJ, Daugherty CK: ‘Hitting you over the head’: Oncologists’ disclosure of prognosis to advanced cancer patients. Bioethics 17:142-168, 2003 - PubMed
    1. The AM, Hak T, Koëter G, et al. : Collusion in doctor-patient communication about imminent death: An ethnographic study. BMJ 321:1376-1381, 2000 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Henselmans I, Smets EMA, Han PKJ, et al. : How long do I have? Observational study on communication about life expectancy with advanced cancer patients. Patient Educ Couns 100:1820-1827, 2017 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms