Difference between revisions of "Singh-etal2017"
ElliottHoey (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Sarguni Singh; Dagoberto Cortez; Douglas Maynard; James F. Cleary; Lori DuBenske; Toby C. Campbell |Title=Characterizing the Nature of S...") |
(published) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Sarguni Singh; Dagoberto Cortez; Douglas Maynard; James F. Cleary; Lori DuBenske; Toby C. Campbell | |Author(s)=Sarguni Singh; Dagoberto Cortez; Douglas Maynard; James F. Cleary; Lori DuBenske; Toby C. Campbell | ||
|Title=Characterizing the Nature of Scan Results Discussions: Insights Into Why Patients Misunderstand Their Prognosis | |Title=Characterizing the Nature of Scan Results Discussions: Insights Into Why Patients Misunderstand Their Prognosis | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Cancer; Medical; |
|Key=Singh-etal2017 | |Key=Singh-etal2017 | ||
|Year=2017 | |Year=2017 | ||
|Journal=Journal of Oncology Practice | |Journal=Journal of Oncology Practice | ||
| + | |Volume=13 | ||
| + | |Number=3 | ||
| + | |Pages=231-239 | ||
|URL=http://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JOP.2016.014621 | |URL=http://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JOP.2016.014621 | ||
|DOI=10.1200/JOP.2016.014621 | |DOI=10.1200/JOP.2016.014621 | ||
Revision as of 07:04, 27 September 2017
| Singh-etal2017 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Singh-etal2017 |
| Author(s) | Sarguni Singh, Dagoberto Cortez, Douglas Maynard, James F. Cleary, Lori DuBenske, Toby C. Campbell |
| Title | Characterizing the Nature of Scan Results Discussions: Insights Into Why Patients Misunderstand Their Prognosis |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Cancer, Medical |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2017 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Oncology Practice |
| Volume | 13 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 231-239 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1200/JOP.2016.014621 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Introduction: Patients with incurable cancer have poor prognostic awareness. We present a detailed analysis of the dialogue between oncologists and patients in conversations with prognostic implications.
Methods: A total of 128 audio-recorded encounters from a large multisite trial were obtained, and 64 involved scan results. We used conversation analysis, a qualitative method for studying human interaction, to analyze typical patterns and conversational devices.
Results: Four components consistently occurred in sequential order: symptom-talk, scan-talk, treatment-talk, and logistic-talk. Six of the encounters (19%) were identified as good news, 15 (45%) as stable news, and 12 (36%) as bad news. The visit duration varied by the type of news: good, 15 minutes (07:00-29:00); stable, 17 minutes (07:00-41:00); and bad, 20 minutes (07:00-28:00). Conversational devices were common, appearing in half of recordings. Treatment-talk occupied 50% of bad-news encounters, 31% of good-news encounters, and 19% of stable-news encounters. Scan-talk occupied less than 10% of all conversations. There were only four instances of frank prognosis discussion.
Conclusion: Oncologists and patients are complicit in constructing the typical encounter. Oncologists spend little time discussing scan results and the prognostic implications in favor of treatment-related talk. Conversational devices routinely help transition from scan-talk to detailed discussions about treatment options. We observed an opportunity to create prognosis-talk after scan-talk with a new conversational device, the question “Would you like to talk about what this means?” as the oncologist seeks permission to disclose prognostic information while ceding control to the patient.
Notes
