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
Meta-Analysis
. 2020 Apr 23;21(5):40.
doi: 10.1007/s11864-020-00742-y.

The Effect of Prognostic Communication on Patient Outcomes in Palliative Cancer Care: a Systematic Review

Naomi C A van der Velden  1   2   3 , Maartje C Meijers  4   5   6 , Paul K J Han  7 , Hanneke W M van Laarhoven  6   8 , Ellen M A Smets  4   5   6 , Inge Henselmans  4   5   6
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

The Effect of Prognostic Communication on Patient Outcomes in Palliative Cancer Care: a Systematic Review

Naomi C A van der Velden et al. Curr Treat Options Oncol. .

Abstract

Background: While prognostic information is considered important for treatment decision-making, physicians struggle to communicate prognosis to advanced cancer patients. This systematic review aimed to offer up-to-date, evidence-based guidance on prognostic communication in palliative oncology.

Methods: PubMed and PsycInfo were searched until September 2019 for literature on the association between prognostic disclosure (strategies) and patient outcomes in palliative cancer care, and its moderators. Methodological quality was reported.

Results: Eighteen studies were included. Concerning prognostic disclosure, results revealed a positive association with patients' prognostic awareness. Findings showed no or positive associations between prognostic disclosure and the physician-patient relationship or the discussion of care preferences. Evidence for an association with the documentation of care preferences or physical outcomes was lacking. Findings on the emotional consequences of prognostic disclosure were multifaceted. Concerning disclosure strategies, affective communication seemingly reduced patients' physiological arousal and improved perceived physician's support. Affective and explicit communication showed no or beneficial effects on patients' psychological well-being and satisfaction. Communicating multiple survival scenarios improved prognostic understanding. Physicians displaying expertise, positivity and collaboration fostered hope. Evidence on demographic, clinical and personality factors moderating the effect of prognostic communication was weak.

Conclusion: If preferred by patients, physicians could disclose prognosis using sensible strategies. The combination of explicit and affective communication, multiple survival scenarios and expert, positive, collaborative behaviour likely benefits most patients. Still, more evidence is needed, and tailoring communication to individual patients is warranted.

Implications: Future research should examine the effect of prognostic communication on psychological well-being over time and treatment decision-making, and focus on individualising care.

Keywords: Advanced cancer; Palliative care; Patient outcomes; Physician-patient communication; Prognosis; Truth disclosure.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Naomi C. A. van der Velden declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Maartje C. Meijers declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Paul K. J. Han declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Hanneke W. M. van Laarhoven declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ellen M. A. Smets declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Inge Henselmans declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram for article search and selection
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance
    1. Gerber DE. Targeted therapies: a new generation of cancer treatments. Am Fam Physician. 2008;77(3):311–319. - PubMed
    1. Kanavos P. The rising burden of cancer in the developing world. Ann Oncol. 2006;17(suppl_8):viii15–viii23. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdl983. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492. - DOI - PubMed
    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. doi: 10.1200/edbk_201211. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Owen R, Jeffrey D. Communication: common challenging scenarios in cancer care. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(8):1163–1168. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.02.029. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types