Quality of Life Research

, 18:109 | Cite as

A conceptual framework for patient–provider communication: a tool in the PRO research tool box

Article

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Method

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Keywords

Patient–professional communication Oncology Conceptual framework Quality-of-life 

References

  1. 1.
    Kalmar, D. A., & Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Theory knitting: An integrative approach to theory development. Philosophical Psychology, 1, 153–170. doi: 10.1080/09515088808572934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sprangers, M. A., Moinpour, C. M., Moynihan, T. J., Patrick, D. L., & Revicki, D. A. (2002). Assessing meaningful change in quality of life over time: A users’ guide for clinicians. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77, 561–571.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Greenhalgh, J., Long, A. F., & Flynn, R. (2005). The use of patient-reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice: Lack of impact or lack of theory? Social Science and Medicine, 60, 833–843. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.06.022.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feldman-Stewart, D., Brundage, M. D., Tishelman, C., & SCRN Communication Team. (2005). A conceptual framework for patient-professional communication: An application to the cancer context. Psycho-Oncology, 14, 801–809. doi: 10.1002/pon.950.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berlo, D. K. (1960). The process of communication. New York: HOlt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  6. 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. 7.
    Ross, R. S. (1970). Speech communication: fundamentals and practice. Englewoods Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mead, N., & Bower, P. (2000). Patient-centredness: A conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature. Social Science and Medicine, 51, 1087–1110. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00098-8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brammer, L. M., & MacDonald, G. (2003). The helping relationship: Process and skills. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    MiIler, G. R. (1972). An introduction to speech communication. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.Google Scholar
  12. 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. 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. 14.
    Bloom, S. W. (1963). The doctor and his patient. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 16.
    Thorne, S. E., & Paterson, B. L. (2001). Health care professional support for self-care management in chronic illness: Insights from diabetes research. Patient Education and Counseling, 42, 81–90. doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(00)00095-1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Makoul, G. (2001). Essential elements of communication in medical encounters: the Kalamazoo consensus statement. Academic Medicine, 76(4), 390–393. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200104000-00021.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. Oxford: Harpers.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 20.
    Marshall, S., Haywood, K., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2006). Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 12, 559–568. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00650.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shapiro, S., Germino, B. B., Skinner, E. A., Vonkorff, M., Turner, R. W., Klein, L. E., et al. (1987). An experiment to change detection and management of mental morbidity in primary care. Medical Care, 25, 327–339. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198704000-00006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wright, E. B., Holcombe, C., & Salmon, P. (2004). Doctors’ communication of trust, care and respect in breast cancer: Qualitative study. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.), 328: 864. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38046.771308.7C.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lavery, J. F., & Clarke, V. A. (1996). Causal attributions, coping strategies, and adjustments to breast cancer. Cancer Nursing, 19, 20–28. doi: 10.1097/00002820-199602000-00003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Cancer Care and EpidemiologyQueen’s University Cancer Research Institute, Level 2KingstonCanada
  2. 2.Department of OncologyQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  3. 3.Department of Community Health and EpidemiologyQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations