» Articles » PMID: 31437262

Communication Interventions in Adult and Pediatric Oncology: A Scoping Review and Analysis of Behavioral Targets

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2019 Aug 23
PMID 31437262
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Improving communication requires that clinicians and patients change their behaviors. Interventions might be more successful if they incorporate principles from behavioral change theories. We aimed to determine which behavioral domains are targeted by communication interventions in oncology.

Methods: Systematic search of literature indexed in Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Clinicaltrials.gov (2000-October 2018) for intervention studies targeting communication behaviors of clinicians and/or patients in oncology. Two authors extracted the following information: population, number of participants, country, number of sites, intervention target, type and context, study design. All included studies were coded based on which behavioral domains were targeted, as defined by Theoretical Domains Framework.

Findings: Eighty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. Interventions varied widely in which behavioral domains were engaged. Knowledge and skills were engaged most frequently (85%, 75/88 and 73%, 64/88, respectively). Fewer than 5% of studies engaged social influences (3%, 3/88) or environmental context/resources (5%, 4/88). No studies engaged reinforcement. Overall, 7/12 behavioral domains were engaged by fewer than 30% of included studies. We identified methodological concerns in many studies. These 88 studies reported 188 different outcome measures, of which 156 measures were reported by individual studies.

Conclusions: Most communication interventions target few behavioral domains. Increased engagement of behavioral domains in future studies could support communication needs in feasible, specific, and sustainable ways. This study is limited by only including interventions that directly facilitated communication interactions, which excluded stand-alone educational interventions and decision-aids. Also, we applied stringent coding criteria to allow for reproducible, consistent coding, potentially leading to underrepresentation of behavioral domains.

Citing Articles

Functions of patient- and family-centered pediatric cancer communication in Pakistan.

Graetz D, Ahmad A, Raza M, Hameed A, Naheed A, Najmi A Front Oncol. 2024; 14:1393908.

PMID: 39323999 PMC: 11422343. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1393908.


"A very difficult conversation": Challenges and opportunities for improvement in pediatric oncology clinician communication about late effects.

Carpenter K, Revette A, Scavotto M, Mack J, Greenzang K Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2024; 71(8):e31093.

PMID: 38840425 PMC: 11282450. DOI: 10.1002/pbc.31093.


"There's no playbook for when your kid has cancer": Desired elements of an electronic resource to support pediatric cancer communication.

Greenzang K, Scavotto M, Revette A, Schlegel S, Silverman L, Mack J Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2023; 70(3):e30198.

PMID: 36602023 PMC: 10375908. DOI: 10.1002/pbc.30198.


Multilevel barriers and facilitators of communication in pediatric oncology: A systematic review.

Sisk B, Harvey K, Friedrich A, Antes A, Yaeger L, Mack J Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2021; 69(1):e29405.

PMID: 34662485 PMC: 8875310. DOI: 10.1002/pbc.29405.


"Don't be afraid to speak up": Communication advice from parents and clinicians of children with cancer.

Sisk B, Keenan M, Blazin L, Kaye E, Baker J, Mack J Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2021; 68(8):e29052.

PMID: 33861026 PMC: 8286806. DOI: 10.1002/pbc.29052.


References
1.
Arora N, McHorney C . Patient preferences for medical decision making: who really wants to participate?. Med Care. 2000; 38(3):335-41. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200003000-00010. View

2.
Guadagnoli E, Soumerai S, Gurwitz J, Borbas C, Shapiro C, Weeks J . Improving discussion of surgical treatment options for patients with breast cancer: local medical opinion leaders versus audit and performance feedback. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2000; 61(2):171-5. DOI: 10.1023/a:1006475012861. View

3.
Ong L, Visser M, Lammes F, Velden J, Kuenen B, de Haes J . Effect of providing cancer patients with the audiotaped initial consultation on satisfaction, recall, and quality of life: a randomized, double-blind study. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18(16):3052-60. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2000.18.16.3052. View

4.
Fleissig A, Jenkins V, Fallowfield L . Results of an intervention study to improve communication about randomised clinical trials of cancer therapy. Eur J Cancer. 2001; 37(3):322-31. DOI: 10.1016/s0959-8049(00)00415-9. View

5.
Gebhardt W, Maes S . Integrating social-psychological frameworks for health behavior research. Am J Health Behav. 2001; 25(6):528-36. DOI: 10.5993/ajhb.25.6.2. View