Navigating Disagreements on Health Information: How Patients With Cancer Perceive Health Care Providers' Approaches to Discussing Patient-Identified Information.

IF 4.7 3区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY JCO oncology practice Pub Date : 2025-01-28 DOI:10.1200/OP.24.00071
Ilona Fridman, Cambray Smith, Amy Barrett, Skyler Johnson, Amrita Bhowmick, Sara Hayes, Jennifer Elston Lafata
{"title":"Navigating Disagreements on Health Information: How Patients With Cancer Perceive Health Care Providers' Approaches to Discussing Patient-Identified Information.","authors":"Ilona Fridman, Cambray Smith, Amy Barrett, Skyler Johnson, Amrita Bhowmick, Sara Hayes, Jennifer Elston Lafata","doi":"10.1200/OP.24.00071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Although publicly available cancer-related information online and offline could help patients make informed decisions, it also poses challenges due to prevalent misinformation. Patients need proper provider guidance to ensure they use valid and relevant information in decisions. We identify effective communication approaches for providers when (1) discussing patient-identified information and (2) disagreeing with it.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From June to August 2023, people living with cancer were reached via online communities and asked first about their actual experiences discussing patient-identified information with their providers. Respondents were then randomly assigned into an experiment with three hypothetical scenarios where providers disagreed with patient-identified information. Provider responses included (1) dismissal, (2) explanation, and (3) explanation with relationship-building elements. Pearson correlation and multivariable analysis of variance were used to evaluate differences in patient perceptions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred seventy-five respondents completed the survey. Mean age: 53 years; 45% female; and 88% White, 10% Black, and 2% others. Forty-six percent held Bachelor's degrees or higher, 11% lived rurally, 36% reported financial difficulties, and 46% rated their health as good/excellent. Between 31% and 37% of respondents reported their provider used communication approaches that negatively correlated with discussion outcomes. The approaches included avoidance of such conversations due to limited time, discouragement of future information searches, or judgmental comments. In the experiment, respondents randomly assigned to receive relationship-building elements were significantly more comfortable sharing information, felt more satisfied, respected, and trusted their provider's opinion more than those receiving the dismissal scenario. The explanation scenario was not perceived differently compared with the dismissal scenario.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>More than a third of respondents reported negative communication when sharing patient-identified information with their provider. Provider prioritization of relationship-building alongside explanations could foster trust and facilitate open information exchange, supporting informed decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"OP2400071"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO oncology practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP.24.00071","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Although publicly available cancer-related information online and offline could help patients make informed decisions, it also poses challenges due to prevalent misinformation. Patients need proper provider guidance to ensure they use valid and relevant information in decisions. We identify effective communication approaches for providers when (1) discussing patient-identified information and (2) disagreeing with it.

Methods: From June to August 2023, people living with cancer were reached via online communities and asked first about their actual experiences discussing patient-identified information with their providers. Respondents were then randomly assigned into an experiment with three hypothetical scenarios where providers disagreed with patient-identified information. Provider responses included (1) dismissal, (2) explanation, and (3) explanation with relationship-building elements. Pearson correlation and multivariable analysis of variance were used to evaluate differences in patient perceptions.

Results: One hundred seventy-five respondents completed the survey. Mean age: 53 years; 45% female; and 88% White, 10% Black, and 2% others. Forty-six percent held Bachelor's degrees or higher, 11% lived rurally, 36% reported financial difficulties, and 46% rated their health as good/excellent. Between 31% and 37% of respondents reported their provider used communication approaches that negatively correlated with discussion outcomes. The approaches included avoidance of such conversations due to limited time, discouragement of future information searches, or judgmental comments. In the experiment, respondents randomly assigned to receive relationship-building elements were significantly more comfortable sharing information, felt more satisfied, respected, and trusted their provider's opinion more than those receiving the dismissal scenario. The explanation scenario was not perceived differently compared with the dismissal scenario.

Conclusion: More than a third of respondents reported negative communication when sharing patient-identified information with their provider. Provider prioritization of relationship-building alongside explanations could foster trust and facilitate open information exchange, supporting informed decisions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
7.50%
发文量
518
期刊最新文献
Real-World Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Implementation: Challenges and Successes of a Pan-Canadian Initiative to Improve the Future of Patient-Centered Cancer Care. Inpatient Immunotherapy Outcomes Study: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis. Facility-Level Disparities in Radiation Use for Limited-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer. Virtual Second-Opinion Delivery for Oncology Patients. If We Build It, Why They Do Not Come? An American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Collaborative to Understand Barriers to Completion of Cancer Treatment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1