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
. 2024 Dec 5;33(1):4.
doi: 10.1007/s00520-024-09000-5.

An international study of clinical, demographic, and competence-related determinants of communication with professionals

Juan Ignacio Arraras  1 , Johannes Giesinger  2 , Omar Shamieh  3 , Iqbal Bahar  4 , Michael Koller  5 , Anne Bredart  6 , Anna Costantini  7 , Eva Greimel  8 , Monika Sztankay  2 , Lisa M Wintner  2 , Marina Carreiro de Sousa  9   10 , Hiroto Ishiki  11 , Meropi Kontogianni  12 , Maja Wolan  13 , Yuichiro Kikawa  14 , Anne Lanceley  15 , Ioannis Gioulbasanis  16 , Amelie Harle  17 , Uxue Zarandona  18 , Dagmara Kulis  19 , Tihana Gašpert  20 , Karin Kuljanic  21 ; European Organisation for Research, Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group
Affiliations
Multicenter Study

An international study of clinical, demographic, and competence-related determinants of communication with professionals

Juan Ignacio Arraras et al. Support Care Cancer. .

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to identify a combination of clinical, demographic, and patient competence determinants of patients' communication with doctors and nurses in an international sample of cancer patients.

Methods: For our cross-sectional study, cancer patients assessed their communication with their doctors or nurses at the start of their treatment. Patients completed EORTC communication questionnaire QLQ-COMU26 to assess ten areas of communication with their doctor or nurses plus another item to assess how competent they felt when communicating with professionals. Bivariable analyses and multivariable linear regression models were performed separately for each QLQ-COMU26 area.

Results: Included in the study were 988 patients from 15 centres in 13 countries (five cultural areas). Higher age was related to higher level of communication in eight QLQ-COMU26 areas. Males reported higher level of communication in three areas. Lower levels of studies and higher level of perceived competence when communicating with professionals were related to higher level of communication in the ten QLQ-COMU26 areas. Communication was of a higher level with nurses than with doctors in four areas. Having received previous treatment with the same doctor or group of nurses was related to higher communication levels in seven areas. Lack of comorbidity was related to higher communication levels in two areas. Various differences in determinants were found among tumour sites.

Conclusion: Our regression model has shown several relationships between communication and the demographic and clinical variables that may help identify patients at risk of poor communication. Future studies could focus on communication at diagnosis and in follow-up, and on areas such as assessing the particularities of communication between patient and professionals in relation to cancer type.

Keywords: Cancer; Communication; Determinants; EORTC.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: This study was performed according to the rules of the Helsinki declaration. The protocol was approved by national or local ethical committees (for Spain, the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Navarra under project 2015/72). Eligible patients were introduced to the study, provided written information, and invited to participate. Written informed consent was obtained from each patient prior to inclusion. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Comment in

References

    1. Fallowfield L, Starkings R, Palmieri C, Tait A, Stephen L, May S et al (2023) Living with metastatic breast cancer (LIMBER): experiences, quality of life, gaps in information, care and support of patients in the UK. Support Care Cancer 31:459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-023-07928-8 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Nguyen TV, Anota A, Brédart A, Monnier A, Bosset JF, Mercier M (2014) A longitudinal analysis of patient satisfaction with care and quality of life in ambulatory oncology based on the OUT-PATSAT35 questionnaire. BMC Cancer 42:14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-14-42 - DOI
    1. Grassi L, Caruso R, Costantini A (2015) Communication with patients suffering from serious physical illness. Adv Psychosom Med 34:10–23. https://doi.org/10.1159/000369050 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Treiman K, McCormack L, Olmsted M, Roach N, Reeve BB, Martens CE et al (2017) Engaging patient advocates and other stakeholders to design measures of patient centered communication in cancer care. Patient 10:93–103 - PubMed
    1. Çakmak C, Uğurluoğlu Ö (2024) The effects of patient-centered communication on patient engagement, health-related quality of life, service quality perception and patient satisfaction in patients with cancer: a cross-sectional study in Türkiye. Cancer Control 31:10732748241236328. https://doi.org/10.1177/10732748241236327 - DOI - PubMed - PMC

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources