Nonverbal Synchrony: An Indicator of Clinical Communication Quality in Racially-Concordant and Racially-Discordant Oncology Interactions

Objectives The aim of this cross-sectional study was to apply a novel software to measure and compare levels of nonverbal synchrony, as a potential indicator of communication quality, in video recordings of racially-concordant and racially-discordant oncology interactions. Predictions include that the levels of nonverbal synchrony will be greater during racially-concordant interactions than racially-discordant interactions, and that levels of nonverbal synchrony will be associated with traditional measures of communication quality in both racially-concordant and racially-discordant interactions. Design This is a secondary observational analysis of video-recorded oncology treatment discussions collected from 2 previous studies. Setting Two National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers and another large urban cancer center. Participants Participants from Study 1 include 161 White patients with cancer and 11 White medical oncologists. Participants from Study 2 include 66 Black/African-American patients with cancer and 17 non-Black medical oncologists. In both studies inclusion criteria for patients was a recent cancer diagnosis; in Study 2 inclusion criteria was identifying as Black/African American. Main outcome measures Nonverbal synchrony and communication quality. Results Greater levels of nonverbal synchrony were observed in racially-discordant interactions than in racially-concordant interactions. Levels of nonverbal synchrony were associated with indicators of communication quality, and these associations were more consistently found in racially-discordant interactions. Conclusion This study advances clinical communication and disparities research by successfully applying a novel approach capturing the unconscious nature of communication, and revealing differences in communication in racially-discordant and racially-concordant oncology interactions. This study highlights the need for further exploration of nonverbal aspects relevant to patient-physician interactions

Patient, companion, and oncologist agreement regarding information discussed during triadic oncology clinical interactions

Background Although people with cancer want and need information from their oncologists, patients and oncologists often disagree about what information was discussed during clinical interactions. Most patients have companions present during oncology visits; we investigated whether companions process information more accurately than patients. Specifically, we examined whether patients and companions differed in agreement with oncologists about what was discussed. We also investigated the effect of topic on agreement and patient/companion self‐reported understanding of discussions. Methods Patients with companions were invited to participate on first visits to a cancer center in Detroit, MI. Patients, companions, and oncologists independently completed questionnaires immediately following visits. Participants were asked whether five topics were discussed (diagnosis, prognosis, metastasis, treatment/treatment goals, and side effects) and, if discussed, what oncologists said. Participants were also asked to estimate their own and each other's understanding of discussions. Results A total of 66 patient–companion–oncologist triads participated. Agreement was higher regarding whether topics were discussed than what oncologists said. Agreement did not differ by dyad type. Patients, companions, and oncologists were equally likely to be the source of triadic disagreements. Agreement was high about diagnosis (>90%) but much lower about other topics, particularly side effects. Patients and companions reported greater understanding of discussions than oncologists estimated and more accurately estimated each other's understanding than did oncologists. Conclusions Companions and patients showed similar levels of agreement with oncologists about what they discussed during visits. Interventions are needed to improve communication of information to both patients and companions, especially about particular topics. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/96703/1/pon3045.pd

Do Patients and Oncologists Discuss the Cost of Cancer Treatment? An Observational Study of Clinical Interactions Between African American Patients and Their Oncologists

PURPOSE: Financial toxicity negatively affects patients with cancer, especially racial/ethnic minorities. Patient-oncologist discussions about treatment-related costs may reduce financial toxicity by factoring costs into treatment decisions. This study investigated the frequency and nature of cost discussions during clinical interactions between African American patients and oncologists and examined whether cost discussions were affected by patient sociodemographic characteristics and social support, a known buffer to perceived financial stress. Methods Video recorded patient-oncologist clinical interactions (n = 103) from outpatient clinics of two urban cancer hospitals (including a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center) were analyzed. Coders studied the videos for the presence and duration of cost discussions and then determined the initiator, topic, oncologist response to the patient\u27s concerns, and the patient\u27s reaction to the oncologist\u27s response. RESULTS: Cost discussions occurred in 45% of clinical interactions. Patients initiated 63% of discussions; oncologists initiated 36%. The most frequent topics were concern about time off from work for treatment (initiated by patients) and insurance (initiated by oncologists). Younger patients and patients with more perceived social support satisfaction were more likely to discuss cost. Patient age interacted with amount of social support to affect frequency of cost discussions within interactions. Younger patients with more social support had more cost discussions; older patients with more social support had fewer cost discussions. CONCLUSION: Cost discussions occurred in fewer than one half of the interactions and most commonly focused on the impact of the diagnosis on patients\u27 opportunity costs rather than treatment costs. Implications for ASCO\u27s Value Framework and design of interventions to improve cost discussions are discussed

Associations between thin slice ratings of affect and rapport and perceived patient-centeredness in primary care: Comparison of audio and video recordings

ObjectiveTo investigate associations between ratings of "thin slices" from recorded clinic visits and perceived patient-centeredness; to compare ratings from video recordings (sound and images) versus audio recordings (sound only).MethodsWe analyzed 133 video-recorded primary care visits and patient perceptions of patient-centeredness. Observers rated thirty-second thin slices on variables assessing patient affect, physician affect, and patient-physician rapport. Video and audio ratings were collected independently.ResultsIn multivariable analyses, ratings of physician positive affect (but not patient positive affect) were significantly positively associated with perceived patient-centeredness using both video and audio thin slices. Patient-physician rapport was significantly positively associated with perceived patient-centeredness using audio, but not video thin slices. Ratings from video and audio thin slices were highly correlated and had similar underlying factor structures.ConclusionPhysician (but not patient) positive affect is significantly associated with perceptions of patient-centeredness and can be measured reliably using either video or audio thin slices. Additional studies are needed to determine whether ratings of patient-physician rapport are associated with perceived patient-centeredness.Practice implicationsObserver ratings of physician positive affect have a meaningful positive association with patients' perceptions of patient-centeredness. Patients appear to be highly attuned to physician positive affect during patient-physician interactions

The role of the clinician in cancer clinical communication

Clinician communication is critical to positive outcomes for patients and families in most health contexts. Researchers have investigated areas such as defining and teaching effective communication and identifying specific outcomes that can be improved through more effective communication. In the area of cancer care, advances in detection and treatment require that clinicians develop new skills to adapt to the evolving needs of patients, families, and other members of the health care team. Some areas that require the attention of researchers are defining, assessing, and teaching effective communication in the context of the specific desires and preferences of individual patients and special populations; and meeting the needs of patients across the cancer continuum from screening, diagnosis, treatment to palliative care and survivorship. This report highlights three areas of research in cancer clinician communication including key areas of current and emerging research and theories and approaches for future research

Racial disparities in cancer genetic counseling encounters: study protocol for investigating patient-genetic counselor communication in the naturalistic clinical setting using a convergent mixed methods design

Abstract Background Despite decades of effort to reduce racial cancer disparities, Black people continue to die at higher rates from cancer than any other U.S. racial group. Because prevention is a key to the cost-effective and long-term control of cancer, the potential for cancer genetic counseling to play a central role in reducing racial cancer disparities is high. However, the benefits of genetic counseling are not equitable across race. Only 2% of genetic counselors self-identify as Black/African American, so most genetic counseling encounters with Black patients are racially discordant. Patients in racially discordant medical interactions tend to have poorer quality patient-provider communication and receive suboptimal clinical recommendations. One major factor that contributes to these healthcare disparities is racial bias. Drawing on findings from prior research, we hypothesize that genetic counselor providers’ implicit racial prejudice will be associated negatively with the quality of patient-provider communication, while providers’ explicit negative racial stereotypes will be associated negatively with the comprehensiveness of clinical discussions of cancer risk and genetic testing for Black (vs. White) patients. Methods Using a convergent mixed methods research design, we will collect data from at least 15 genetic counseling providers, from two different institutions, and their 220 patients (approximately equal number of Black and White patients per provider) whose appointments are for a hereditary cancer condition. The data sources will include two provider surveys, two patient surveys, video- and/or audio-recordings of genetic counseling encounters, and medical chart reviews. The recorded cancer genetic counseling in-person and telehealth encounters will be analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively to assess the quality of patient-provider communication and the comprehensiveness of clinical discussion. Those data will be linked to pre- and post-encounter survey data and data from medical chart reviews to test our hypotheses. Discussion Findings from this multi-site study will highlight specific aspects of cancer genetic counseling encounters (patient-provider communication and clinical recommendations) that are directly associated with patient-centered outcomes (e.g., satisfaction, trust, genetic testing completion). Patient-provider communication and clinical recommendations are modifiable factors that can be integrated into current genetic counseling training curricula and thus can have immediate impact on genetic counseling training and practice

Information seeking during "bad news" oncology interactions: Question asking by patients and their companions

Previous research has investigated patient question asking in clinical settings as a strategy of information seeking and as an indicator of the level of active patient participation in the interaction. This study investigates questions asked by patients and their companions during stressful encounters in the oncology setting in the USA. We transcribed all questions patients and companions asked the oncologist during 28 outpatient interactions in which "bad news" was discussed (n=705) and analyzed them for frequency and topic. Additionally, we analyzed the extent to which personal and demographic characteristics and independently obtained ratings of the oncologist-patient/companion relationships were related to question asking. Findings demonstrated that at least one companion was present in 24 (86%) of the 28 interactions and companions asked significantly more questions than patients. The most frequently occurring topics for both patients and companions were treatment, diagnostic testing, diagnosis, and prognosis. In general, personal and demographic characteristics were unrelated to question asking, but older patients asked fewer questions, while more educated patients asked more questions. With regard to ratings of the quality of the dyadic relationships, results showed that "trust" between the physician and companions was positively correlated and "conversational dominance by physician" was negatively correlated with the frequency of companion questions. Additionally, positive ratings of the relationship between physicians and companions were correlated with fewer patient questions. This study demonstrates that companions are active participants in stressful oncology interactions. Future research and physician training in communication would benefit from expanding the focus beyond the patient-physician dyad to the roles and influence of multiple participants in medical interactions.Cancer Physician-patient communication Question asking Information-seeking USA