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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2020 Mar;25(3):e578-e588.
doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0453. Epub 2019 Nov 26.

Effect of a Skills Training for Oncologists and a Patient Communication Aid on Shared Decision Making About Palliative Systemic Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Effect of a Skills Training for Oncologists and a Patient Communication Aid on Shared Decision Making About Palliative Systemic Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Inge Henselmans et al. Oncologist. 2020 Mar.

Abstract

Background: Palliative systematic treatment offers uncertain and often limited benefits, and the burden can be high. Hence, treatment decisions require shared decision making (SDM). This trial examined the independent and combined effect of an oncologist training and a patient communication aid on SDM.

Methods: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial with four parallel arms (2016-2018), oncologists (n = 31) were randomized to receive SDM communication skills training or not. The training consisted of a reader, two group sessions, a booster session, and a consultation room tool (10 hours). Patients (n = 194) with advanced cancer were randomized to receive a patient communication aid or not. The aid consisted of education on SDM, a question prompt list, and a value clarification exercise. The primary outcome was observed SDM as rated by blinded observers from audio-recorded consultations. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported SDM, patient and oncologist satisfaction, patients' decisional conflict, patient quality of life 3 months after consultation, consultation duration, and the decision made.

Results: The oncologist training had a large positive effect on observed SDM (Cohen's d = 1.12) and on patient-reported SDM (d = 0.73). The patient communication aid did not improve SDM. The combination of interventions did not add to the effect of training oncologists only. The interventions affected neither patient nor oncologist satisfaction with the consultation nor patients' decisional conflict, quality of life, consultation duration, or the decision made.

Conclusion: Training medical oncologists in SDM about palliative systemic treatment improves both observed and patient-reported SDM. A patient communication aid does not. The incorporation of skills training in (continuing) educational programs for medical oncologists is likely to stimulate the widely advocated uptake of shared decision making in clinical practice.

Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Registry NTR 5489.

Implications for practice: Treatment for advanced cancer offers uncertain and often small benefits, and the burden can be high. Hence, treatment decisions require shared decision making (SDM). SDM is increasingly advocated for ethical reasons and for its beneficial effect on patient outcomes. Few initiatives to stimulate SDM are evaluated in robust designs. This randomized controlled trial shows that training medical oncologists improves both observed and patient-reported SDM in clinical encounters (n = 194). A preconsultation communication aid for patients did not add to the effect of training oncologists. SDM training effectively changes oncologists' practice and should be implemented in (continuing) educational programs.

Keywords: Advanced cancer; Communication skills training; Doctor-patient communication; Palliative medicine; Patient education; Patient participation; Shared decision making; Systemic treatment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Description of the interventions. Abbreviations: CME, continuing medical education; PCA, patient communication aid; QPL, question prompt list; SDM, shared decision making; VCM, value clarification method.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flow chart of oncologist inclusion. aAs randomization did not result in sufficiently large training groups (>2), one additional participant was recruited and assigned to the training. This final participant did not include patients in the trial because of a leave of absence in the inclusion period after training.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Flow chart of patient inclusion.

References

    1. LeBlanc TW, Temel JS, Helft PR. “How much time do I have?”: Communicating prognosis in the era of exceptional responders. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2018;38:787–794. - PubMed
    1. Stiggelbout AM, van der Weijden T, De Wit MPT et al. Shared decision making: Really putting patients at the centre of healthcare. BMJ 2012;344:e256. - PubMed
    1. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision‐making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med 1997;44:681–692. - PubMed
    1. Stiggelbout AM, Pieterse AH, De Haes JC. Shared decision making: Concepts, evidence, and practice. Patient Educ Couns 2015;98:1172–1179. - PubMed
    1. Yennurajalingam S, Rodrigues LF, Shamieh OM et al. Decisional control preferences among patients with advanced cancer: An international multicenter cross‐sectional survey. Palliat Med 2018;32:870–880. - PubMed

Publication types