A conceptual framework for patient–provider communication: a tool in the PRO research tool box
- 476 Downloads
To demonstrate how a previously described conceptual framework of physician–patient communication can inform the application of existing theory and the extension of new theory regarding the impact of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice.
We used a communication framework to guide interpretation of empirical results relating to three situations: Collecting PROs from individual patients, providing individual patient’s PROs to his/her physician, and providing PROs from clinical trials to individual patients.
For each of the selected situations, results of empirical studies of PROs are discussed in terms of the elements of the communication framework. These influences are developed into testable hypotheses regarding the impact of PROs and alternative hypotheses explaining empirical research results. We further illustrate how the conceptual framework can be knitted to other theories of communication to enhance understanding of the use of PROs in clinical practice.
Guidance of a conceptual framework of communication can enhance understanding of PRO study results and lead to testable hypotheses about how to further improve the clinical use of PROs.
KeywordsPatient–professional communication Oncology Conceptual framework Quality-of-life
- 5.Berlo, D. K. (1960). The process of communication. New York: HOlt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
- 6.Riccardi, V. M., & Kurtz, S. M. (1983). Clinical Communication: Models and techniques. Communication and counseling in health care (pp. 29–51). Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
- 7.Ross, R. S. (1970). Speech communication: fundamentals and practice. Englewoods Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- 9.Brammer, L. M., & MacDonald, G. (2003). The helping relationship: Process and skills. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.Google Scholar
- 10.Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
- 11.MiIler, G. R. (1972). An introduction to speech communication. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.Google Scholar
- 12.Dance, F. E. X. (1967). Toward a theory of human communication. In F. E. X. Dance (Ed.), Human communication theory (pp. 288–309). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc.Google Scholar
- 13.Northouse, L. L., & Northouse, P. G. (1998). An introduction to health communication. In L. L. Northouse & P. G. Norhouse (Eds.), Health communication: Strategies for health professionals (pp. 1–21). Stanford: Appleton and Lange.Google Scholar
- 14.Bloom, S. W. (1963). The doctor and his patient. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
- 15.Street, R. L. (2003). Communication in medical encounters: An ecological perspective. In T. Thomson, T. Thomson, A. M. Dorsey, K. I. Miller, & R. Parrott (Eds.), Handbook of health communication (pp. 63–89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- 18.Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. Oxford: Harpers.Google Scholar
- 19.Velikova, G., Booth, L., Smith, A. B., Brown, P. M., Lynch, P., Brown, J. M., & Selby, P. J. (2004). Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22, 714–724.Google Scholar
- 24.Brundage, M., Feldman-Stewart, D., Leis, A., Bezjak, A., & Pater, J. L. Patients’ judgements about the value quality of life information when considering lung cancer (NSCLS) treatment options. 2006 International Society for Quality of Life Research meeting abstracts. www.isoqol.org/2006mtgabstracts. The QLR Journal 2006: A-68.
- 25.Kennedy, A. P., Nelson, E., Reeves, D., Richardson, G., Roberts, C., Robinson, A., et al. (2004). A randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost of a patient orientated self management approach to chronic inflammatory bowel disease. Gut, 53, 1639–1645. doi: 10.1136/gut.2003.034256.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar