Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 20, Issue 9, pp 1965–1973 | Cite as

Predictors and outcomes of feeling of insufficient consultation time in cancer care in Korea: results of a nationwide multicenter survey

  • Dong Wook Shin
  • Jae-Hyun ParkEmail author
  • Eun-Jung Shim
  • Myung-Il Hahm
  • Jong-Hyock Park
  • Eun-Cheol Park
Original Article



Shared decision making and an integrative approach is expected to result in better outcomes, but might require more time. While ensuring that sufficient consultation time is essential to quality cancer care, it is not clear whether cancer patients feel that the amount of consultation time with their oncologists is sufficient.


Data were collected from 2,556 cancer patients on their perceived and preferred consultation time, and included potential predictors, such as socio-demographics, clinical, behavioral, and quality-of-life factors, as well as potential outcomes, including unmet patient needs, trust in doctor, and satisfaction. The feeling of insufficient consultation time was defined as the perception that consultation time is less than the preferred consultation time; multivariate analyses were used for identification of predictors and comparison of outcomes.


Overall, 37.1% felt that consultation time was less than preferred. Younger age, female sex, higher education level, having national health insurance, having been diagnosed with less common cancers, and having anxiety/depression were significantly associated with feelings of insufficient consultation time. Subjects with a feeling of insufficient consultation time reported higher current needs for information, physical symptoms, and psychological problems. They also reported less trust in their physician, lower overall satisfaction, and lower intention to continue treatment at the current cancer center.


This study illustrated that high-quality cancer care, characterized by shared decision making and an integrative approach, seems to be related to sufficient consultation time that meets the individual’s subjective needs, and measures should be taken to ensure sufficient consultation time.


Oncology Consultation Need Trust Satisfaction 



This study has been supported by a grant from the National Cancer Center (Grant number; 0710170, 0910191), Republic of Korea. The authors would also like to thank the reviewers of this paper for their valid suggestions, which contributed to the improvement of the paper.

Financial disclosure/conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    Brown RF, Butow PN, Dunn SM, Tattersall MH (2001) Promoting patient participation and shortening cancer consultations: a randomised trial. Br J Cancer 85:1273–1279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bruera E, Hui D (2010) Integrating supportive and palliative care in the trajectory of cancer: establishing goals and models of care. J Clin Oncol 28:4013–4017PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Butow PN, Kazemi JN, Beeney LJ, Griffin AM, Dunn SM, Tattersall MH (1996) When the diagnosis is cancer: patient communication experiences and preferences. Cancer 77:2630–2637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Campbell JL, Ramsay J, Green J (2001) Practice size: impact on consultation length, workload, and patient assessment of care. Br J Gen Pract 51:644–650PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cape J (2002) Consultation length, patient-estimated consultation length, and satisfaction with the consultation. Br J Gen Pract 52:1004–1006PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cassileth BR, Zupkis RV, Sutton-Smith K, March V (1980) Information and participation preferences among cancer patients. Ann Intern Med 92:832–836PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Choi KH, Park JH, Park SM (2010) Cancer patients' informational needs on health promotion and related factors: a multi-institutional, cross-sectional study in Korea. Support Care Cancer 19:1495–1504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Degner LF, Sloan JA (1992) Decision making during serious illness: what role do patients really want to play? J Clin Epidemiol 45:941–950PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Detmar SB, Aaronson NK, Wever LD, Muller M, Schornagel JH (2000) How are you feeling? Who wants to know? Patients' and oncologists' preferences for discussing health-related quality-of-life issues. J Clin Oncol 18:3295–3301PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Detmar SB, Muller MJ, Wever LD, Schornagel JH, Aaronson NK (2001) The patient–physician relationship. Patient–physician communication during outpatient palliative treatment visits: an observational study. JAMA 285:1351–1357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deveugele M, Derese A, van den Brink-Muinen A, Bensing J, De Maeseneer J (2002) Consultation length in general practice: cross sectional study in six European countries. BMJ 325:472PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elwyn G, Edwards A, Kinnersley P (1999) Shared decision-making in primary care: the neglected second half of the consultation. Br J Gen Pract 49:477–482PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hack TF, Pickles T, Ruether JD, Weir L, Bultz BD, Degner LF (2009) Behind closed doors: systematic analysis of breast cancer consultation communication and predictors of satisfaction with communication. Psychooncology 19:626–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hall MA, Camacho F, Dugan E, Balkrishnan R (2002) Trust in the medical profession: conceptual and measurement issues. Heal Serv Res 37:1419–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hall MA, Dugan E, Zheng B, Mishra AK (2001) Trust in physicians and medical institutions: what is it, can it be measured, and does it matter? Milbank Q 79:613–639, vPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Howie JG, Porter AM, Forbes JF (1989) Quality and the use of time in general practice: widening the discussion. BMJ 298:1008–1010PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Howie JG, Porter AM, Heaney DJ, Hopton JL (1991) Long to short consultation ratio: a proxy measure of quality of care for general practice. Br J Gen Pract 41:48–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hubbard G, Kidd L, Donaghy E (2008) Preferences for involvement in treatment decision making of patients with cancer: a review of the literature. Eur J Oncol Nurs 12:299–318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hughes D (1983) Consultation length and outcome in two group general practices. J R Coll Gen Pract 33:143–147PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hull FM, Hull FS (1984) Time and the general practitioner: the patient's view. J R Coll Gen Pract 34:71–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hutton C, Gunn J (2007) Do longer consultations improve the management of psychological problems in general practice? A systematic literature review. BMC Heal Serv Res 7:71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim MH, Cho YS, Uhm WS, Kim S, Bae SC (2005) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Korean version of the EQ-5D in patients with rheumatic diseases. Qual Life Res 14:1401–1406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Knight R (1987) The importance of list size and consultation length as factors in general practice. J R Coll Gen Pract 37:19–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lussier MT, Richard C (2007) Communication tips. Time flies: patients' perceptions of consultation length and actual duration. Can Fam Physician 53:46–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Maguire P (1999) Improving communication with cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 35:1415–1422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maguire P, Faulkner A, Booth K, Elliott C, Hillier V (1996) Helping cancer patients disclose their concerns. Eur J Cancer 32:78–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Morrell DC, Evans ME, Morris RW, Roland MO (1986) The "five minute" consultation: effect of time constraint on clinical content and patient satisfaction. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 292:870–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    National Cancer Center (2009) Cancer facts and figures. National Cancer Center, Goyang, KoreaGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ogden J, Bavalia K, Bull M, Frankum S, Goldie C, Gosslau M, Jones A, Kumar S, Vasant K (2004) "I want more time with my doctor": a quantitative study of time and the consultation. Fam Pract 21:479–483PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OCED) (2009) OECD health data 2009. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Petek Ster M, Svab I, Zivcec Kalan G (2008) Factors related to consultation time: experience in Slovenia. Scand J Prim Health Care 26:29–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pollak KI, Arnold RM, Jeffreys AS, Alexander SC, Olsen MK, Abernethy AP, Sugg Skinner C, Rodriguez KL, Tulsky JA (2007) Oncologist communication about emotion during visits with patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:5748–5752PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pollock K, Grime J (2002) Patients' perceptions of entitlement to time in general practice consultations for depression: qualitative study. BMJ 325:687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Robinson TM, Alexander SC, Hays M, Jeffreys AS, Olsen MK, Rodriguez KL, Pollak KI, Abernethy AP, Arnold R, Tulsky JA (2008) Patient–oncologist communication in advanced cancer: predictors of patient perception of prognosis. Support Care Cancer 16:1049–1057PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Roland MO, Bartholomew J, Courtenay MJ, Morris RW, Morrell DC (1986) The "five minute" consultation: effect of time constraint on verbal communication. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 292:874–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shim EJ, Lee KS, Park JH, Park JH (2010) Comprehensive needs assessment tool in cancer (CNAT): the development and validation. Support Care Cancer (in press)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Siminoff LA, Ravdin P, Colabianchi N, Sturm CM (2000) Doctor–patient communication patterns in breast cancer adjuvant therapy discussions. Health Expect 3:26–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tulsky JA, Fischer GS, Rose MR, Arnold RM (1998) Opening the black box: how do physicians communicate about advance directives? Ann Intern Med 129:441–449PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Walling A, Lorenz KA, Dy SM, Naeim A, Sanati H, Asch SM, Wenger NS (2008) Evidence-based recommendations for information and care planning in cancer care. J Clin Oncol 26:3896–3902PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Westcott R (1977) The length of consultations in general practice. J R Coll Gen Pract 27:552PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Whelan T, Sawka C, Levine M, Gafni A, Reyno L, Willan A, Julian J, Dent S, Abu-Zahra H, Chouinard E, Tozer R, Pritchard K, Bodendorfer I (2003) Helping patients make informed choices: a randomized trial of a decision aid for adjuvant chemotherapy in lymph node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 95:581–587PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wilson A (1991) Consultation length in general practice: a review. Br J Gen Pract 41:119–122PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wilson AD (1985) Consultation length: general practitioners' attitudes and practices. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 290:1322–1324CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dong Wook Shin
    • 1
  • Jae-Hyun Park
    • 2
    Email author
  • Eun-Jung Shim
    • 3
  • Myung-Il Hahm
    • 4
  • Jong-Hyock Park
    • 5
  • Eun-Cheol Park
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Family Medicine & Health Promotion Center, Seoul National University Hospital Cancer Survivorship ClinicSeoul National University Cancer HospitalSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Samsung Biomedical Research InstituteSungkyunkwan University School of MedicineSuwonSouth Korea
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyCatholic University of DaeguGyeongbukSouth Korea
  4. 4.Department of Health Administration and Management, College of Medical ScienceSoonchunhyang UniversityAsanSouth Korea
  5. 5.National Cancer Control InstituteNational Cancer CenterGyeonggi-doSouth Korea
  6. 6.Department of Preventive Medicine & Institute of Health Services ResearchYonsei University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations