Advertisement

BMC Cancer

, 19:808 | Cite as

Outcomes and outcome measures used in evaluation of communication training in oncology – a systematic literature review, an expert workshop, and recommendations for future research

  • F. FischerEmail author
  • S. Helmer
  • A. Rogge
  • J. I. Arraras
  • A. Buchholz
  • A. Hannawa
  • M. Horneber
  • A. Kiss
  • M. Rose
  • W. Söllner
  • B. Stein
  • J. Weis
  • P. Schofield
  • C. M. Witt
Open Access
Research article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Survivorship, cancer burden and supportive therapy

Abstract

Background

Communication between health care provider and patients in oncology presents challenges. Communication skills training have been frequently developed to address those. Given the complexity of communication training, the choice of outcomes and outcome measures to assess its effectiveness is important. The aim of this paper is to 1) perform a systematic review on outcomes and outcome measures used in evaluations of communication training, 2) discuss specific challenges and 3) provide recommendations for the selection of outcomes in future studies.

Methods

To identify studies and reviews reporting on the evaluation of communication training for health care professionals in oncology, we searched seven databases (Ovid MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO, PsychARTICLES and Web of Science). We extracted outcomes assessed and the respective assessment methods. We held a two-day workshop with experts (n = 16) in communication theory, development and evaluation of generic or cancer-specific communication training and/or outcome measure development to identify and address challenges in the evaluation of communication training in oncology. After the workshop, participants contributed to the development of recommendations addressing those challenges.

Results

Out of 2181 references, we included 96 publications (33 RCTs, 2 RCT protocols, 4 controlled trials, 36 uncontrolled studies, 21 reviews) in the review. Most frequently used outcomes were participants’ training evaluation, their communication confidence, observed communication skills and patients’ overall satisfaction and anxiety. Outcomes were assessed using questionnaires for participants (57.3%), patients (36.0%) and observations of real (34.7%) and simulated (30.7%) patient encounters. Outcomes and outcome measures varied widely across studies. Experts agreed that outcomes need to be precisely defined and linked with explicit learning objectives of the training. Furthermore, outcomes should be assessed as broadly as possible on different levels (health care professional, patient and interaction level).

Conclusions

Measuring the effects of training programmes aimed at improving health care professionals’ communication skills presents considerable challenges. Outcomes as well as outcome measures differ widely across studies. We recommended to link outcome assessment to specific learning objectives and to assess outcomes as broadly as possible.

Keywords

Communication training Evaluation Oncology Outcome 

Background

Communicating with cancer patients, for example disclosing the diagnosis, discussing treatment and providing emotional support in discussions about end of life, can be challenging: [1]. Hence, effective communication skills are considered vital to high quality cancer care [2]. Programmes have been developed and conducted to train physicians and other health care professionals (HCPs) to communicate more effectively with cancer patients [3, 4]. Although intuitively appealing, a recent review of randomized controlled trials investigating the benefit of communication skill training (CST) showed mixed results. While an improvement in HCPs’ communication skills was reported for some programmes, effects on patient-reported outcomes, such as psychological distress or quality of life, have not been established yet [5]. This was also reported in earlier reviews [6, 7]. Nonetheless, experts agree that the ultimate objective of clinician-patient communication training is to improve patient outcomes, such as adherence, self-efficacy health-related quality of life [6].

The choice of appropriate outcomes and the instrument to measure these (outcome measures) is critical to accurately assess the effectiveness of CST [8, 9]. It has been demanded to closely link outcomes with the content of the CST, to use only validated scales as outcome measures and to assess long-term effects of the intervention [10]. This can be challenging as outcomes directly linked to an intervention (proximal outcomes) might be considered less relevant as distal outcomes, particularly for long-term follow-up [11], and validated scales are sparse for narrowly defined outcomes. Eventually, many different outcome measures have been developed and used in the past, and as a result, there are no standards for appropriate evaluation (i.e., methodology and measurement) of clinician-patient communication training in oncology.

Therefore, this paper aims to
  1. 1.

    Provide an overview of the outcomes and outcome measures as well as the respective assessment methods used for CST in oncology,

     
  2. 2.

    Identify challenges that have been encountered in the evaluation of CST in oncology,

     
  3. 3.

    Provide recommendations to address these challenges in future research.

     

To achieve these aims, we 1) performed a systematic review of the literature and identified outcomes and outcome measures that have been used to evaluate the effects of CST, 2) convened a workshop involving international experts to discuss challenges in assessing outcomes of CSTs to complement the review and 3) developed recommendations to address these challenges in future evaluations of CSTs.

Methods

Systematic review

We conducted a systematic review to identify outcomes assessed as well as the respective outcome measures used in the field. We specified a protocol, which is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd5hyggt. We searched seven electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO, PsychARTICLES and Web of Science) in December 2016 for publications reporting on the effects of standardized CST in oncology. In addition, we hand-searched reference lists of the 21 identified reviews for relevant studies missed by our search.

We combined search terms describing aspects of physician-patient relations that are common goals of CST (communication, empathy, interaction, …) with terms describing structured programmes (course, curriculum, training, …). Search terms were informed by previous reviews [4, 5, 8, 9, 12], which mainly investigated the effects of standardized communication trainings. We used MeSH terms and limits to restrict the results to trials and observational studies in adult cancer patients, depending on the respective database. Explicit search terms are listed in Table 1.
Table 1

Search terms for MEDLINE search

Search terms

Limiters

(((AB (communicat* OR empath* OR ‘interaction’ OR ‘interpersonal’ OR ‘interview’ OR ‘patient relation’ OR ‘shared decision making’) OR TI (communicat* OR empath* OR ‘interaction’ OR ‘interpersonal’ OR ‘interview’ OR ‘patient relation’ OR ‘shared decision making’))AND (AB (teach* OR session OR educat* OR program* OR instruction OR curriculum OR course OR training OR workshop OR skills) OR TI (teach* OR session OR educat* OR program* OR instruction OR curriculum OR course OR training OR workshop OR skills)) AND (AB (evaluation OR assessment OR effects OR study OR trial OR investigation) OR TI (evaluation OR assessment OR effects OR study OR trial OR investigation)))) AND MM “Neoplasms”

Abstract Available; Human; Age Related: Young Adult: 19–24 years, Adult: 19–44 years, Middle Aged: 45–64 years, Middle Aged + Aged: 45 + years, Aged: 65+ years, Aged, 80 and over, All Adult: 19+ years; Subject Subset: Cancer; Publication Type: Clinical Trial, Clinical Trial, Phase I, Clinical Trial, Phase II, Clinical Trial, Phase III, Clinical Trial, Phase IV, Comparative Study, Controlled Clinical Trial, Evaluation Studies, Meta-Analysis, Multicenter Study, Randomized Controlled Trial, Review, Validation Studies; Language: English, German

Inclusion criteria were interventional or observational studies or reviews, which assessed the effects or evaluated standardized CST tailored to physicians and/or other health care professionals focusing on communication with adult cancer patients. In addition, these needed to be published in a scientific outlet or as publicly available reports, working papers or theses. Publications were excluded if the outcome assessment was not standardized in the specific study, e.g., not all participants were evaluated using the same method, or if the publication was available in neither English nor German.

One reviewer (FF) checked all references found in the literature search and excluded clearly irrelevant articles based on titles and abstracts. We obtained full text copies from all remaining articles and two reviewers (FF, AR) assessed those independently for eligibility. We assessed the agreement of their selections by calculating the kappa statistic. We excluded publications when both reviewers agreed. We documented reasons for exclusion and resolved disagreements by discussion. If several reports for a single study were identified, all publications were reviewed for eligibility.

We grouped outcome measures in original research into the respective underlying constructs, and counted the frequency of their use. Along with information about the outcomes assessed, we extracted the study design, sample size, target group and intervention characteristics. As the results of the included studies were not of interest, we did not assess the risk of bias.

As reviews on the efficacy of CST potentially contained relevant information about challenges in outcome choice and outcome measurement, we included them in our review. We extracted and qualitatively synthesized arguments regarding outcomes and the respective outcome measures. To avoid redundancy, we did not extract information about outcomes and outcome measures used in primary data from the reviews.

In general, we followed the PRISMA reporting guidelines [13], although some items were not applicable given the scope of the review.

Expert workshop

We held a two-day workshop in Berlin, Germany in February 2017. The aim of the workshop was to complement the systematic review by identifying challenges in the evaluation of communication training in oncology and to discuss ways to address those challenges in future research.

We invited researchers from the “Kompetenznetzwerk Komplementärmedizin in der Onkologie” KOKON, who investigate communication about complementary medicine, to the workshop. We also defined fields for which we sought additional expertise. These fields were communication theory, development and evaluation of generic or cancer-specific communication training and/or outcome measure development. Experts in these fields were identified based on their occurance in the review as well as through suggestions by other invited researchers. Overall, 16 experts, including a patient representative, took part in the workshop (see Table 2).
Table 2

Participants in the expert workshop

Participant

Affiliation

Country

Juan Ignacio Arraras

Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Radiotherapeutic Oncology Department & Medical Oncology Department, Pamplona

Spain

Angela Buchholz

Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf

Germany

Felix Fischer

Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Center for Internal Medicine and Dermatology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin

Germany

Corina Güthlin

Institute of General Practice, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt/Main

Germany

Stefanie Helmer

Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin

Germany

Annegret Hannawa

Center for the Advancement of Healthcare Quality and Patient Safety (CAHQS), Faculty of Communication Sciences, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano

Switzerland

Markus Horneber

Department of Internal Medicine, Divisions of Pneumology and Oncology/Hematology, Paracelsus Medical University, Klinikum Nuernberg

Germany

Ulrike Holtkamp

German Leukemia & Lymphoma Patients’ Association

Germany

Alexander Kiss

Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, University Hospital Basel

Switzerland

Christin Kohrs

Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Oncology and Hematology, Paracelsus Medical University, Klinikum Nuernberg

Germany

Darius Razavi

Psychosomatic and Psycho-Oncology Resarch Unit, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels

Belgium

Matthias Rose

Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Center for Internal Medicine and Dermatology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin

Germany

Jan Schildmann

Institute for History and Ethics of Medicine, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg

Germany

Penelope Schofield

Department of Psychology, Swinburne University, Melbourne

Australia

Barbara Stein

Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Oncology and Hematology, Paracelsus Medical University, Klinikum Nuernberg

Germany

Claudia Witt

Institute for Complementary and Integrative Medicine, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich

Switzerland

We organised the workshop into four parts:
  1. 1.

    Participants shared their perspectives and experiences regarding development and evaluation of communication trainings. In this part, we posed four broad questions: (a) what are good practices when communicating with oncology patients, (b) what are the desirable effects of good communication, (c) how one can generally assess quality of communication, and (d) what are experiences from evaluations of CST. Additionally, we presented preliminary results of the review. Participants wrote Issues elicited that were important for a valid assessment/evaluation of CST on cards.

     
  2. 2.

    The participants then clustered those cards on a board into broader topics to identify areas that needed to be considered when measuring the effects of CST. Then, we identified three main topics for further discussion.

     
  3. 3.

    The members participated in structured, small group discussions focusing on the three topics. We assigned participants to one of the three groups. Each group discussed one of the three topics for 20 min prior to rotating to the next group. Three ‘discussion leaders’ were each assigned to one of the three topics to guide the small group discussion.

     
  4. 4.

    Discussion leaders presented the results obtained in step 3 to the entire group, and we discussed these results in a plenary session.

     

Development of expert recommendations

After the workshop, we drafted recommendations for future evaluations of communication training in oncology based on the results of the systematic review as well as the experts’ discussions. We invited workshop participants to comment on the recommendations during manuscript preparation, and the recommendations were adapted until no further comments were made.

Results

Systematic review

Search results

Overall, our search retrieved 2181 references. We identified an additional 118 references by examining reference lists in identified reviews on communication training. After removing duplicates, we screened 1938 abstracts and excluded 1529 because they did not fulfill inclusion criteria, leaving 409 references for full text analysis. Of these, 313 publications did not fulfill inclusion criteria and were therefore excluded, leaving 96 publications for inclusion in the review. The agreement on exclusion between reviewers was moderate (kappa = 0.56), with consistent decisions on 351 articles. All conflicts were resolved through discussion. We give the detailed reasons for the exclusion of references in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1

Flowchart for literature search and study selection

Included studies

Of the 96 publications found eligible for synthesis, 33 reported on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 2 were RCT protocols of so far unpublished trials, 4 were controlled trials (group allocation not randomized), 36 were uncontrolled studies and 21 were reviews.

The number of participants included in studies reporting on primary data ranged from 3 to 515, with 50% of studies reporting sample sizes between 30 and 114. The participants of the CST were physicians in 51% of the studies, nurses in 36%, mixed health care providers (mostly physicians and nurses) in 11% and other health care professionals (e.g., speech therapists) in 3%. Out of 33 RCTs, 19 compared participants of a CST with a waiting list control group, 7 compared different forms of CST, e.g., workshops of varying length or by adding consolidation workshops, 6 compared a CST to a no training condition, and in one RCT, it was unclear whether the control group received any intervention. Two of the four controlled trials compared interventions with a waiting list, whereas 1 compared a basic with an extended intervention, and 1 study compared performance of the same sample before and after completing the intervention. In the uncontrolled studies, 33 of 36 followed a pre-post design, comparing outcomes before and after the intervention, while 3 assessed outcomes only after the intervention.

Overview of outcomes

The articles reporting primary data and study protocols reported on average 3.2 (sd = 2.2, range = 1–10) distinct outcome measures. 43 (57.3%) articles reported outcome data collected from CST programme participants, 27 (36.0%) from patients of the programme participants, 26 (34.7%) reported on observations of real and 23 (30.7%) on simulated communication encounters, and 9 (12%) reported on other types of outcome measures. Approximately half of the studies (37/49.3%) reported data from one of these sources only, one-third (25/33.3%) two sources, 11 (14.7%) three sources and 2 (2.7%) four sources.

CST participant questionnaires

Overall, 43 studies (11 RCTs, 2 RCT protocols, and 25 trials/observational studies) reported 93 outcomes collected with questionnaires for CST participants. The most frequently reported data were from training evaluation questionnaires, followed by questionnaires obtaining self-ratings on aspects of the respondents’ communication (communication confidence (16), communication self-effectiveness (4), communication skills (3), communication practice (1)) and respondents’ distress/burnout (16). The outcomes and the respective instruments are listed in Table 3.
Table 3

Outcomes and respective measures for the assessment of training participants

Outcome construct

Outcome measure

Number of studies

References

Training evaluation

purpose built

25

[14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38]

Communication confidence

Baile’s Questionnaire [39]

16

[20, 22, 39, 40]

Fallowfield’s Questionnaire [30]

 

[30, 41, 42]

modified Communication Outcomes Questionnaire [43]

 

[39]

purpose built

 

[16, 23, 26, 28, 30, 33, 40, 44, 45, 46]

Distress

General Health Questionnaire [47]

16

[21, 22]

Maslach Burnout Inventory [48]

 

[17, 19, 20, 22, 35, 49, 50]

Nursing Stress Scale [51]

 

[35, 50, 52, 53]

purpose built

 

[54, 55]

Communication self- effectiveness

modified Communication Outcomes Questionnaire [43]

4

[56, 57, 58]

purpose built

 

[50]

Attitudes towards cancer

Physician Psychosocial Belief Scale [59]

3

[46]

purpose built using a semantic differential [60]

 

[52, 53]

Communication skills

modified Nurses’ Basic Communication Skills Scale [61]

3

[58]

Perception of the Interview Questionnaire [62]

 

[52]

purpose built

 

[33]

Implementation of training elements in practice

purpose built

3

[28, 29, 46]

Expectations on the consultation

modified Communication Outcomes Questionnaire [43]

3

[39, 58]

purpose built

 

[16]

Satisfaction with consultation given

purpose built

3

[16, 52, 56]

Communication practices within the department

purpose built

2

[23, 36]

Anxiety

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory [63]

1

[56]

Attitudes towards caring

Attitudes Towards Caring for Patients Feeling Meaninglessness instrument

1

[34]

Attitudes towards dying

Frommelt Attitude Towards Care of the Dying [64]

1

[34]

Attitudes towards clinician-patient-relationship

Doctor-Patient rating [65]

1

[25]

Confidence in information provision

purpose built [66]

1

[17]

Coping

purpose built

1

[36]

Empathy

Test of Empathic Capacity [67]

1

[25]

Knowledge

purpose built

1

[29]

Patient-centeredness

Words emotionally related to dying test [68]a

1

[46]

Perceived support

Nurses’ Self-Perceived Support Scale [69]

1

[58]

Clinician-patient relationship

Nurse-Patient Relationship Inventory [70]a

1

[50]

Sense of coherence

Sense of Coherence-13 [71]

1

[34]

Shared decision-making behaviour

Mapping-Q [72]

1

[73]

Social support

purpose built

1

[36]

Truth-telling preference

Truth Telling Questionnaire [74]

1

[75]

areference could not be retrieved

Patient questionnaires

A total of 26 studies (18 RCTs, 2 RCT protocols of so far unpublished trials, and 6 trials/observational studies) reported on 84 (35 unique constructs) outcomes collected with questionnaires for patients of CST participants. Most frequently, patients’ overall satisfaction was assessed (12), followed by anxiety (10), generic quality of life (6) and depression (5). All outcomes assessed and the respective instruments are listed in Table 4.
Table 4

Outcomes and respective measures for the assessment of patients

Outcome construct

Outcome measure

Number of studies

Studies

Satisfaction

adapted Client Satisfaction Questionnaire [76]

12

[77]

adapted from Korsch et al. [78]

 

[14]

Cancer Diagnostic Interview Scale [79]

 

[80]

EORTC Cancer Outpatient Satisfaction with Care Questionnaire [81]

 

[54]

Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale [82]

 

[77, 83]

Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire III [84]

 

[85]

Patient Satisfaction with Communication Questionnaire [86]

 

[41]

purpose built

 

[16, 49, 87, 88]

Anxiety

Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [89]

10

[50, 55, 90, 91, 92]

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory [63]

 

[14, 41, 49, 77, 91]

Quality of life

EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C-30 [93]

6

[49, 50, 87]

EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C-15 Pal [94]

 

[85]

Perceived Adjustment to Chronic Illness Scale [95]

 

[49]

8 Item Short Form Health Survey (SF 8) [96]

 

[87]

Depression

Beck Depression Inventory [97]

5

[77, 80]

Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [89]

 

[50, 55, 90]

Distress

Brief Symptom Inventory

5

[80]

General Health Questionnaire [47]

 

[41]

Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [89]

 

[40, 98]

purpose built

 

[80]

Empathy

Consultation and Relational Empathy Measure [99]

3

[98, 100]

purpose built

 

[101]

Knowledge

Ellis Clinical Trials Knowledge [66]

3

[14]

purpose built

 

[49, 73]

Information and control preference

(modified) Information & Control Preference Scale [102]

3

[14, 49]

Quality of Care Through the Patients’ Eyes (QUOTE-gene-CA) [103]

 

[104]

Satisfaction with decision

Satisfaction with Decision Scale [105]

3

[14, 49, 98]

Communication skills

Perception of the Interview Questionnaire [62]

2

[52]

purpose built

 

[85]

Decisional conflict

Decisional Conflict Scale [106]

2

[14, 98]

Clinician-patient relationship

Nurse-Patient Relationship Inventory [107]a

2

[50]

purpose built

 

[100]

Quality of care

Palliative Care Outcome Scale [108]

2

[85]

purpose built

 

[85]

Shared decision-making behaviour

MAPPIN-Q [72]

2

[73]

Shared Decision Making Questionnaire [109]

 

[98]

Trust in clinician

purpose built

2

[40, 101]

areference could not be verified

Observations of real patient encounters

A total of 26 articles (14 RCTs, 2 RCT protocols, and 10 trials/observational studies) reported on observations of real patient encounters. Outcomes assessed were communication skills, e.g., supportive utterances or eliciting patients’ thoughts [14, 15, 16, 52, 54, 55, 83, 87, 90, 91, 101, 104, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118], actual content of the interview [41, 42, 104, 116] and shared decision making behaviour [17, 73].

Encounters were either audio-recorded (17), video-recorded (10) or both (1), partly transcribed and rated using mostly self-developed or adapted coding systems. In general, each coding system defines a number of behaviours or utterances, and observers rate their occurrence subsequently. Those behaviours are usually derived from a clearly defined model of communication. For example, the coding system employed by Wilkinson et al. [117] reflects key areas of a nurse interview, and Fukui et al. [55, 87, 90] connects behaviour to the 6 steps of the SPIKES protocol. Only in one paper [113], authors used an established coding scheme without adaption (MIPS [119]). Publications using the same coding systems were mostly from the same research group.

Several measures were usually taken to ensure the quality of the rating process. These included blinding of the raters, rater training and assessment of inter-rater reliability in the full or a subsample of recorded observations or rater supervision by an experienced rater. In two studies, transcripts were automatically coded using specialized software along with context-specific dictionaries [54, 110].

Observations of simulated patient encounters

A total of 23 references ([13] RCTs, 10 trials/observational studies) reported on observations of simulated patient encounters. Most studies assessed communication skills [15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 40, 44, 52, 53, 56, 57, 80, 88, 110, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127]. In two studies, the content of the interview was explicitly assessed as the number of elicited concerns specified in the actors role [19] and observed key aspects from guidelines [44]. The reaction to scripted cues [21] and the working alliance [127] were each assessed in one study.

In 10 cases, encounters were video-taped, whereas in 11 they were audio-taped; in 2, it was unclear whether encounters had been recorded. Similar to observations of real patient encounters, in most cases, (20) self-developed or adapted ratings of communication behaviour were assessed [18, 19, 20, 57, 75, 80, 120, 121, 122, 126]. The most frequently used rating system was an adaption of the Cancer Research Campaign Workshop Evaluation Manual (CRCWEM) [52, 53, 88, 110, 125, 128]. All these studies were conducted by the same research group. Three studies [40, 123, 127] used adapted versions of the Roter Interaction Inventory, and one study [124] assessed communication behaviour using the Medical Interaction Process System MIPS [119].

Other outcomes

A total of 10 outcome measures in 9 studies were assessed using other methods than direct observations of a communication situation or questionnaires for health care professionals or patients. In one case, objective measures (HCPs’ heart rate and cortisol level) were used to measure stress [56]. Another strategy was to use open questions on either case vignettes or actual communication encounters to test knowledge on communication models [21, 22, 129] or interview either patients or programme participants [23, 115]. Additionally, observable patient behaviour, such as uptake of a treatment or screening participation [73] or as feedback from simulation patients [24, 44], served as outcome.

Outcome assessments in reviews on the efficacy of CSTs

A total of 21 reviews assessed the efficacy of CST. In 7 of these 21 reviews, the choice of outcome measures in the included studies was not discussed [3, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135].

One review commented that the term “communication” was used vaguely and inconsistently across studies [136], and another concluded that studies often did not clearly define which specific communication competencies were addressed by the respective CST [6]. Consequently, these problems hampered the comparability of studies [137]. Hence, it has been suggested that core communication competencies should be defined to guide future research [138], preferably in terms of an overall score with some key dimensions [6]. Such a communication model for a specific domain can be developed, for example, within a meta-synthesis [139]. For example, researchers could identify critical internal and external factors in the domain of breaking bad news that could be used to inform the development of the CST as well as the desired outcome [139]. A key challenge is that it may be impossible to define communication behaviours that are appropriate in all given situations [140].

Outcome assessment must be aligned to the specific aim of the CST [7, 10] with a formal definition of the communication behaviour that is being taught. Some authors argued that a change in patient outcomes is the ultimate goal of communication training [6, 137], but communication training can also be seen as a vital resource for HCPs to reduce work-induced stress [141]. It has been proposed to employ an outcome measurement framework – such as Kirkpatrick’s triangle [137], which differentiates different levels of impact of the training, or a more specific framework detailing the possible effects of a communication training in the context of oncology [142].

Although self-reports of the participants have been frequently obtained, these are more prone to bias compared to more objective measurements, e.g., through observation of communication behaviour [136]. Consequently, the latest, most comprehensive Cochrane review on the effects of communication trainings in oncology specifically excludes self-reported outcomes on knowledge and attitudes as those are prone to optimistic bias [5]. Furthermore, generic outcomes, such as overall satisfaction of patients, have been found to be sensitive to ceiling effects, making it difficult to measure improvement through CST [7]. On the other hand, it has been argued that direct observations of clinical encounters can also be biased as this might be intrusive [143]. Arguably, there is a need to assess patient outcomes more frequently [6, 144] and to investigate the impact of an intervention on the whole medical team [144]. However, existing reviews indicated that the effect of CST on patients is small [5, 7]. It is unclear whether this is because of competing influences on patient outcomes or an inappropriate choice of outcome measures.

The reviews agree that it would be desirable to concentrate on a single pre-specified outcome measure [5, 7, 145] and to use validated scales for outcome assessment [5, 10].

Results of the workshop

We identified additional challenges in the evaluation of CST during the workshop, which are presented in Table 5.
Table 5

Challenges in the choice of outcomes and outcome measures for CSTs in oncology

Challenge

Description

Communication skills and the outcomes of communication encounters between health care professionals and their patients are related to many internal and external variables.

HCPs communication is influenced by trait factors such as extraversion, state variables such as current stress level and work satisfaction as well as personal knowledge. The same is true for patients, who also have different personality factors and information bases as well as emotional needs and may be at different stages in the illness trajectory. A specific communication encounter will be additionally influenced by external factors that shape the communication situation, such as availability of time and its implementation in clinical routine.

It is hard to define ‘correct’ communication behaviour.

HCPs communication styles and patients’ needs addressable by communication differ widely, both across patients and during the course of disease. Communication often takes unpredictable turns and miscommunication is frequent; this does not necessarily imply that the outcome of a miscommunication is bad.

Targeting of CST can be improved.

Highly motivated HCPs with good communication skills are more likely to take part in CSTs than HCPs with bad communication styles. Therefore, ceiling effects, both in actual effects and their measurement, have been frequently observed. Patients’ needs must be adequately addressed in the conceptualization of the training.

Learning objectives of CST vary widely.

CSTs differ widely in their specificity (generic communication training, such as active listening and expressing empathy vs. training tailored to specific communication tasks such as breaking bad news). If a CST is focused on a specific communication task, consideration needs to be given to all the skills required to satisfactorily deal with the situation.

Communication affects many different outcomes.

CSTs target many different outcome parameters. Some of them are closely connected to the content of the CST (proximal outcomes), others are influenced by many other factors as well (distal outcomes). While proximal outcomes are more likely to reflect changes after a CST, there are known problems. For example, measures of satisfaction of CST participants have frequently exhibited ceiling effects. Additionally, empathy was considered an important construct by experts but difficult to measure in an objective way. It seems to be difficult to define the appropriate measurement to capture proximal outcomes, such as clinician skill in expression of empathy. Distal outcomes such as Anxiety, Distress and Quality of Life are influenced by many other factors besides communication and the effect of a communication training on such distal outcomes has often been limited.

Validated measures are not available for specific outcomes of interest.

The limited availability of validated scales for proximal outcomes was identified by experts as a considerable barrier. This also implies that it is unclear what minimal important differences are on such scales. Scales measuring generic, broadly applicable outcomes are more likely to be used and validated. Most outcomes for which validated measures exist are distal. The imperative in research to employ validated scales might influence researchers to select generic outcomes, which may not be optimally aligned with the goals of a particular CST.

Participants identified three main domains of outcomes for further discussion:
  1. 1.

    Outcomes related to the HCP taking part in the CST, such as their communication skills or satisfaction with the training,

     
  2. 2.

    Outcomes related to a specific interaction between HCPs and patients,

     
  3. 3.

    Outcomes related to the patients who communicate with the trained HCP.

     

Overall, experts agreed that a “one size fits all approach” is not appropriate in defining outcomes for CST evaluations; thus, we cannot give recommendation on specific constructs. Rather, outcomes need to be dependent on the specific learning objectives of the CST under evaluation. For each of the levels mentioned above, investigators need to define realistic and achievable outcomes for a specific CST. The group favoured measurement of direct behavioural observation of the targeted communication skills either with simulated or real patients. For example, situational judgement tests where participants are asked how they would react in a given situation [146] could be an interesting way to measure the effect of CST.

Recommendations for future research

Based on the results from the systematic review and the discussion during the workshop, we make the following recommendations:
  1. 1.

    The choice of outcomes must be closely linked to the scope of communication training. Achieving a change in distal, generic outcomes requires the use of more intense interventions and larger evaluation studies compared to assessment of proximal, specific outcomes. Minimal clinically important differences should be defined beforehand.

     
  2. 2.

    Learning objectives must be adequately defined and targeted in the training. Proximal outcomes must be closely aligned with these objectives. Theoretical models or concepts of how these proximal outcomes will affect more distal outcomes should be made explicit.

     
  3. 3.

    Researchers should distinguish between three different levels for the evaluation of communication training: I) during the actual training process, II) during the interaction between patient and HCP, and III) after the interaction between patient and HCP. The intended impact of the training on these different settings and the respective proximal and distal outcomes should be explicitly defined, preferably derived from theoretical communication models.

     
  4. 4.

    Both experts and stakeholders, in particular patient representatives, should be involved in the definition of learning objectives, the development of the actual training, and the choice of outcomes.

     
  5. 5.
    A single outcome measure cannot cover all relevant outcomes to measure the effects of CST in oncology. Therefore, we recommend
    1. a.

      Considering multiple potential outcomes. We suggest measuring the effects of communication training on all three domains identified: HCP, patient and interaction. Assessing the interaction is particularly relevant as concordance of judgements between patient and HCP should be investigated.

       
    2. b.

      Avoiding measuring outcomes with known problems. For example, global ratings from patients on empathy or satisfaction have frequently exhibited ceiling effects and might be prone to social desirability.

       
    3. c.

      Complementing quantitative assessments with qualitative assessments when possible as quantitative assessments seem unable to completely represent the communication process. These qualitative assessments could be an analysis of the communication encounter as well as qualitative interviews with CST participants or patients. Less common outcome measures, such as physiological stress reactions or situational judgement testing using case vignettes, might help to fill a gap.

       
    4. d.

      Ensuring that the development and selection of outcome measures is transparent, clearly described and reproducible for other researchers as purpose-built outcome measures still have a central role in the evaluation of communication training programmes to reflect the content of the specific training.

       
     

Discussion

This paper gives an overview of outcomes and the respective outcome measures previously used in the evaluation of communication training in oncology. It further discusses challenges experienced with outcome measurement in such studies and gives recommendations for future research. Many CSTs have been developed, implemented and evaluated to support health care professionals addressing specific communication challenges in cancer care. Our systematic review showed that outcomes and the respective outcome measures differ widely. The complementing workshop clearly described the challenges experienced in the evaluation of CSTs. To date, neither a specific outcome nor a specific outcome measure is a widely accepted standard tool. The large differences in content, extent and target populations of communication training in oncology can explain this. The lack of standardization, however, hampers building systematic and more conclusive evidence. Specific models of communication and theories how communication affects HCPs as well as patients in oncology can inform selection of appropriate outcomes.

An interesting finding is that outcomes and the respective outcome measures, as well as the challenges identified, are in most cases not specific to oncology. This suggests that generic communication processes can hardly be broken down to be disease specific. Exceptions are the outcome measures provided by the EORTC and the Cancer Research Campaign Workshop Evaluation Manual (CRCWEM), which have been specifically developed to assess the experiences of cancer patients.

The strengths of this study include its comprehensiveness as a descriptive review of outcome measures used in the evaluation of CSTs. The inclusion of systematic literature reviews on the effects of CSTs in this review revealed additional challenges, which are particularly relevant when study results need to be synthesized in meta-analysis.

Nonetheless, limitations of this work need to be taken into account when interpreting its findings. First, we could not register the review protocol, as its scope did not fulfil eligibility criteria for PROSPERO. Nonetheless, we wrote a protocol before we conducted the review. Furthermore, the syntheses of the specific outcomes in categories was difficult to standardize, since most primary studies made no specific distinction between outcome and the respective outcome measure. Although we grouped similar outcomes into categories, category borders are somewhat blurry, as often there are no clear definitions of the outcomes available. A further limitation is that a detailed analysis of psychometric quality in terms of reliability and validity of all outcome measures identified in the review has not been feasible. Hence, we cannot advise for or against the use of specific instruments, but we encourage the assessment of psychometric quality when one chooses an outcome measure. For this purpose, standardized tools can be used (e.g., EMPRO [147]). Another limitation is that the recruitment of the participants for the workshop did not follow a pre-specified protocol, but we selected potential participants based on their appearance as authors in the review as well as by recommendation by other participants. Furthermore, not all participants participated in the development of the recommendations after the workshop. Hence, these recommendations may not necessarily reflect the opinions of all participants in the workshop.

Conclusion

Our review of the literature and the expert workshop made it clear that measuring the impact of CST in oncology is challenging. As human communication is complex, the heterogeneity of outcome assessment in studies is large. The complexity of the interventions and their potential effects hampers establishment of standard outcomes and outcome measures. Definition of a single core outcome suitable for each CST in oncology is unrealistic – there is a lack of consensus on what a core outcome could be and how it could be reliably assessed. Hence, we suggest a broad, reproducible assessment of communication on different levels derived from explicit learning objectives. Future research should emphasize the associations between these different perspectives on communication and develop theoretical frameworks that can guide the choice of relevant outcomes and meaningful effects of CSTs.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors like to thank Corinna Güthlin, Ulrike Holtkamp, Christin Kohrs, Darius Razavi, and Jan Schildmann for their valuable contributions in the workshop.

Authors’ contributions

The systematic review was planned by FF and CMW and conducted by FF, SH, and AR. FF, SH, AR and CMW planned the workshop, and JIA, AB, AH, MH, AK, MR, WS, BS and PS contributed to the workshop. FF wrote a first draft of the manuscript. SH, AR, JIA, AB, AH, MH, AK, MR, WS, BS, JW, PS and CW revised this draft, and all authors approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This project was funded by the Deutsche Krebshilfe (Kompetenznetzwerk Komplementärmedizin in der Onkologie - KOKON, grant number 70112369). The funder had no role in the planning of the study or the preparation of the manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Parker PA, Aaron J, Baile WF. Breast cancer: unique communication challenges and strategies to address them. Breast J. 2009;15:69–75.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4741.2008.00673.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fallow L, Jenkins V. Effective communication skills are the key to good Cancer care. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35:1592–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gysels M, Richardson A, Higginson IJ. Communication training for health professionals who care for patients with cancer: a systematic review of training methods. Support Care Cancer. 2005;13:356–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berkhof M, van Rijssen HJ, Schellart AJM, Anema JR, van der Beek AJ. Effective training strategies for teaching communication skills to physicians: an overview of systematic reviews. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84:152–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.06.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moore PM, Rivera Mercado S, Grez Artigues M, Lawrie TA. Communication skills training for healthcare professionals working with people who have cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013:CD003751.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003751.pub3.
  6. 6.
    Barth J, Lannen P. Efficacy of communication skills training courses in oncology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:1030–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Uitterhoeve RJ, Bensing JM, Grol RP, Demulder PHM, Van Achterberg T. The effect of communication skills training on patient outcomes in cancer care: a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2010;19:442–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hulsman RL, Ros WJG, Winnubst JAM, Bensing JM. Teaching clinically experienced physicians communication skills. a review of evaluation studies. Med Educ. 1999;33:655–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parry R. Are interventions to enhance communication performance in allied health professionals effective, and how should they be delivered? Direct and indirect evidence. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73:186–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stiefel F, Barth J, Bensing J, Fallowfield L, Jost L, Razavi D, et al. Communication skills training in oncology: a position paper based on a consensus meeting among European experts in 2009. Ann Oncol. 2010;21:204–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brenner MH, Curbow B, West Legro M. The Proximal-Distal Continuum of Multiple Health Outcome Measures: The Case of Cataract Surgery. Medical Care. 1995;33:236–44.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cheraghi-Sohi S, Bower P. Can the feedback of patient assessments, brief training, or their combination, improve the interpersonal skills of primary care physicians? a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:179.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brown R, Butow PN, Boyle F, Tattersall MHN. Seeking informed consent to cancer clinical trials; evaluating the efficacy of doctor communication skills training. Psychooncology. 2007;16:507–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bylund CL, Brown RF, Bialer PA, Levin TT, Lubrano di Ciccone B, Kissane DW. Developing and implementing an advanced communication training program in oncology at a comprehensive cancer center. J Cancer Educ. 2011;26:604–11.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-011-0226-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Niglio de Figueiredo M, Rodolph B, Bylund CL, Goelz T, Heußner P, Sattel H, et al. ComOn Coaching: Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial to assess the effect of a varied number of coaching sessions on transfer into clinical practice following communication skills training. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:503.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1454-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Butow P, Brown R, Aldridge J, Juraskova I, Zoller P, Boyle F, et al. Can consultation skills training change doctors’ behaviour to increase involvement of patients in making decisions about standard treatment and clinical trials: a randomized controlled trial. Health Expect. 2015;18:2570–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brown RF, Bylund CL, Kline N, De La Cruz A, Solan J, Kelvin J, et al. Identifying and responding to depression in adult cancer patients: evaluating the efficacy of a pilot communication skills training program for oncology nurses. Cancer Nurs. 2009;32:E1–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Butow P, Cockburn J, Girgis A, Bowman D, Schofield P, D’Este C, et al. Increasing oncologists’ skills in eliciting and responding to emotional cues: evaluation of a communication skills training program. Psychooncology. 2008;17:209–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fujimori M, Shirai Y, Asai M, Akizuki N, Katsumata N, Kubota K, et al. Development and preliminary evaluation of communication skills training program for oncologists based on patient preferences for communicating bad news. Palliat Support Care. 2013:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S147895151300031X.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Turner J, Clavarino A, Butow P, Yates P, Hargraves M, Connors V, et al. Enhancing the capacity of oncology nurses to provide supportive care for parents with advanced cancer: evaluation of an educational intervention. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:1798–806.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2009.02.023.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fujimori M, Oba A, Koike M, Okamura M, Akizuki N, Kamiya M, et al. Communication skills training for Japanese oncologists on how to break bad news. J Cancer Educ. 2003;18:194–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bibila S, Rabiee F. Training the powerful: issues that emerged during the evaluation of a communication skills training programme for senior cancer care professionals. Eur J Cancer Care. 2014;23:531–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rosenzweig M, Clifton M, Arnold R. Development of communication skills workshop for oncology advanced practice nursing students. J Cancer Educ. 2007;22:149–53.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08858190701428182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Aspegren K, Birgegård G, Ekeberg Ö, Hietanen P, Holm U. Improving awareness of the psychosocial needs of the patienta training course for experienced Cancer doctors. Acta Oncol. 1996;35:246–7.  https://doi.org/10.3109/02841869609098509.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baile WF, Kudelka AP, Beale EA, Glober GA, Myers EG, Greisinger AJ, et al. Communication skills training in oncology. Cancer. 1999;86:887–97.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19990901)86:5<887::aid-cncr27>3.0.co;2-x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bourquin C, Stiefel F, Bernhard J, Bianchi Micheli G, Dietrich L, Hürny C, et al. Mandatory communication skills training for oncologists: enforcement does not substantially impact satisfaction. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22:2611–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dixon H, Hordern A, Borland R. The breast Cancer distance education program. Cancer Nurs. 2001;24:44–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fallowfield L, Langridge C, Jenkins V. Communication skills training for breast cancer teams talking about trials. Breast. 2014;23:193–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fallowfield L, Saul J, Gilligan B. Teaching senior nurses how to teach communication skills in oncology. Cancer Nurs. 2001;24:185–91.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00002820-200106000-00005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Finset A, Ekeberg Ø, Eide H, Aspegren K. Long term benefits of communication skills training for cancer doctors. Psychooncology. 2003;12:686–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Grassi L, Travado L, Gil F, Campos R, Lluch P, Baile W. A communication intervention for training southern European oncologists to recognize psychosocial morbidity in cancer. I: development of the model and preliminary results on physicians’ satisfaction. J Cancer Educ. 2005;20:79–84.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430154jce2002.
  33. 33.
    Griffiths J, Wilson C, Ewing G, Connolly M, Grande G. Improving communication with palliative care cancer patients at home - a pilot study of SAGE & THYME communication skills model. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2015;19:465–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Henoch I, Danielson E, Strang S, Browall M, Melin-Johansson C. Training intervention for health care staff in the provision of existential support to patients with cancer: a randomized, controlled study. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2013;46:785–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.01.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kubota Y, Okuyama T, Uchida M, Umezawa S, Nakaguchi T, Sugano K, et al. Effectiveness of a psycho-oncology training program for oncology nurses: a randomized controlled trial. Psychooncology. 2016;718:712–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Visser A, Wysmans M. Improving patient education by an in-service communication training for health care providers at a cancer ward: communication climate, patient satisfaction and the need of lasting implementation. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78:402–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.01.011.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wuensch A, Goelz T, Bertz H, Wirsching M, Fritzsche K. Disclosing information about randomised controlled trials in oncology: training concept and evaluation of an individualised communication skills training for physicians COM-ON-rct. Eur J Cancer Care. 2011;20:570–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Brown PM. Personalized medicine and comparative effectiveness research in an era of fixed budgets. EPMA J. 2010;1:633–40.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13167-010-0058-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Baile W, Lenzi R, Kudelka AP, Maguire P, Novack D, Goldstein MG, et al. Improving physician-patient communication in cancer care. J Cancer Educ. 1997;12:166–73.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fujimori M, Shirai Y, Asai M, Kubota K, Katsumata N, Uchitomi Y. Effect of communication skills training program for oncologists based on patient preferences for communication when receiving bad news: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:2166–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wilkinson S, Perry R, Blanchard K, Linsell L. Effectiveness of a three-day communication skills course in changing nurses’ communication skills with cancer/palliative care patients: a randomised controlled trial. Palliat Med. 2008;22:365–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wilkinson SM, Leliopoulou C, Gambles M, Roberts A. Can intensive three-day programmes improve nurses’ communication skills in cancer care? Psychooncology. 2003;12:747–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Parle M, Maguire P, Heaven C. The development of a training model to improve health professionals’ skills, self-efficacy and outcome expactancies when communicating with cancer patients. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:231–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jenkins V, Fallowfield L, Solis-Trapala I, Langridge C, Farewell V. Discussing randomised clinical trials of cancer therapy: evaluation of a Cancer Research UK training programme. BMJ. 2005;330:400.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38366.562685.8F.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Brown R, Bylund CL, Eddington J, Gueguen JA, Kissane DW. Discussing prognosis in an oncology setting : initial evaluation of a communication skills training module. Psychooncology. 2010;414:408–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fallowfield BL, Lipkin M, Hall A. Teaching senior oncologists communication skills: results from phase I of a comprehensive longitudinal program in the United Kingdom. J Clin Oncol. 1998;5:1961–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Goldberg DP, Gater R, Sartorius N, Ustun TB, Piccinelli M, Gureje O, et al. The validity of two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care. Psychol Med. 1997;27:191–7.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291796004242.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Maslach C, Jackson S. The measurement of experienced burnout. J Organ Behav. 1981;2:99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bernhard J, Butow P, Aldridge J, Juraskova I, Ribi K, Brown R. Communication about standard treatment options and clinical trials: can we teach doctors new skills to improve patient outcomes? Psychooncology. 2012;21:1265–74.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.2044.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rask MT, Jensen ML, Andersen J, Zachariae R. Effects of an intervention aimed at improving nurse-patient communication in an oncology outpatient clinic. Cancer Nurs. 2009;32.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ncc.0000343365.13871.12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gray-Toft P, Anderson JG. The nursing stress scale: development of an instrument. J Behav Assess. 1981;3:11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Delvaux N, Merckaert I, Marchal S, Libert Y, Conradt S, Boniver J, et al. Physicians’ communication with a cancer patient and a relative: a randomized study assessing the efficacy of consolidation workshops. Cancer. 2005;103:2397–411.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Razavi D, Delvaux N, Marchal S, Bredart A, Farvacques C, Paesmans M. The effects of a 24-h psychological training program on attitudes, communication skills and occupational stress in oncology: a randomisedstudy. Eur J Cancer. 1993;29:1858–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Merckaert I, Delevallez F, Gibon AS, Liénard A, Libert Y, Delvaux N, et al. Transfer of communication skills to the workplace: impact of a 38-hour communication skills training program designed for radiotherapy teams. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:901–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Fukui S, Ogawa K, Ohtsuka M, Fukui N. Effect of communication skills training on nurses’ detection of patients’ distress and related factors after cancer diagnosis: a randomized study. Psychooncology. 2009;18:1156–64.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1429.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Meunier J, Merckaert I, Libert Y, Delvaux N, Etienne AM, Liénard A, et al. The effect of communication skills training on residents’ physiological arousal in a breaking bad news simulated task. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;93:40–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Gibon AS, Merckaert I, Liénard A, Libert Y, Delvaux N, Marchal S, et al. Is it possible to improve radiotherapy team members’ communication skills? A randomized study assessing the efficacy of a 38-h communication skills training program. Radiother Oncol. 2013;109:170–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2013.08.019.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Liu J-E, Mok E, Wong T, Xue L, Xu B. Evaluation of an integrated communication skills training program for nurses in cancer care in Beijing, China. Nurs Res. 2007;56:202–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ashworth CD, Williamson P, Montano D. A scale to measure physician beliefs about psychosocial aspects of patient care. Soc Sci Med. 1984;19:1235–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Silberfarb PM, Levine PM. Psychosocial aspects of neoplastic disease. III. Group support for the oncology nurse. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 1980;2:192–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Arthur D. Assessing nursing students’ basic communication and interviewing skills: the development and testing of a rating scale. J Adv Nurs. 1999;29:658–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Razavi D, Merckaert I, Marchal S, Libert Y, Conradt S, Boniver J, et al. How to optimize physicians’ communication skills in cancer care: results of a randomized study assessing the usefulness of posttraining consolidation workshops. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:3141–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene R, Vagg PR, Jacobs GA. Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1983.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Frommelt KH. The effects of death education on nurses’ attitudes towardcaring for terminally ill persons and their families. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 1991;8:37–43.  https://doi.org/10.1177/104990919100800509.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    de Monchy C, Richardson R, Brown RA, Harden RM. Measuring attitudes of doctors: the doctor-patient (DP) rating. Med Educ. 1988;22:231–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ellis PM, Butow PN, John Simes R, Tattersall MHN, Dunn SM. Barriers to participation in randomized clinical trials for early breast Cancer among Australian Cancer Specalists. Aust N Z J Surg. 1999;69:486–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Holm U. Kan empatisk formiga matas? Soc Tidskr; 1991. p. 427–32.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Barnett M, McMichael H. Can doctors’ attitudes influence emotional response in patients with advanced cancer? a prospective study. J Cancer Care. 1992;1:145–9.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Wong P, Lau T, Mok E. Communication with cancer patients: perception and practice. Hong Kong Nurs J. 1996;74:20–4.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Rask MT, Jensen ML, Zachariae R. Validation of a Danish version of the nursing stress scale. Int J Behav Med. 2006;13(suppl):150.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Antonovsky A. Unraveling the mystery of health: how people manage stress and stay well. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1987.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Kasper J, Hoffmann F, Heesen C, Köpke S, Geiger F. Mappin’SDM - the multifocal approach to sharing in shared decision making. PLoS One. 2012;7:e34849.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034849.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Berger-Hoger B, Liethmann K, Muhlhauser I, Haastert B, Steckelberg A. Informed shared decision-making supported by decision coaches for women with ductal carcinoma in situ: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2015;16:452.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0991-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Fujimori M, Akechi T, Morita T, Masatoshi I, Akizuku N, Sakano Y, et al. Preferences of cancer patients regarding the disclosure of bad news. Psychooncology. 2007;16:573–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Tang WR, Chen KY, Hsu SH, Juang YY, Chiu SC, Hsiao SC, et al. Effectiveness of Japanese SHARE model in improving Taiwanese healthcare personnel’s preference for cancer truth telling. Psychooncology. 2014;23:259–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Larsen DL, Attkisson CC, Hargreaves WA, Nguyen TD. Assessment of client/patient satisfaction: development of a general scale. Eval Program Plann 1979;2:197–207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Rutter DR, Iconomou G, Quine L. Doctor–patient communication and outcome in cancer patients: an intervention. Psychol Health. 1996;12:57–71.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08870449608406922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Korsch BM, Gozzi EK, Francis V. Gaps in doctor-patient communication. Pediatrics. 1968;42:855–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Roberts CS, Cox CE, Reintgen DS, Baile WF, Gibertini M. Influence of physician communication on newly diagnosed breast patients’ psychologic adjustment and decision-making. Cancer. 1994;74(1S):336–41.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Stewart M, Brown JB. Improving communication between doctors and Breast Cancer patients; 2007. p. 387–94.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Poinsot R, Altmeyer A, Conroy T, Savignoni A, Asselain B, Léonard I, et al. Validation multicentrique d’un questionnaire de satisfaction des soins lors d’un traitement de chimiothérapie ou radiothérapie ambulatoire. Bull Cancer. 2006;93:315–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Wolf MH, Putnam SM, James SA, Stiles WB. The medical interview satisfaction scale: development of a scale to measure patient perceptions of physician behavior. J Behav Med. 1978;1:391–401.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Hulsman RL, Ros WJG, Winnubst JAM, Bensing JM. The effectiveness of a computer-assisted instruction programme on communication skills of medical specialists in oncology. Med Educ. 2002;36:125–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Ware JE, Snyder MK, Wright WR, Davies AR. Defining and measuring patient satisfaction with medical care. Eval Program Plann. 1983;6:247–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Slort W, Blankenstein AH, Schweitzer BPM, Deliens L, Van Der Horst HE. Effectiveness of the “availability, current issues and anticipation” (ACA) training programme for general practice trainees on communication with palliative care patients: a controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;95:83–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Fallowfield L, Jenkins V, Farewell V, Saul J, Duffy A, Eves R. Efficacy of a Cancer Research UK communication skills training model for oncologists: a randomisedcontrolled trial. Lancet. 2002;359:650–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07810-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Fukui S, Ogawa K, Yamagishi A. Effectiveness of communication skills training of nurses on the quality of life and satisfaction with healthcare professionals among newly diagnosed cancer patients: a preliminary study. Psychooncology. 2011;20:1285–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Delvaux N, Razavi D, Marchal S, Bredart A, Farvacques C, Slachmuylder J-L. Effects of a 105 hours psychological training program on attitudes, communication skills and occupational stress in oncology: a randomised study. Br J Cancer. 2004;90:106–14.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67:361–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Fukui S, Ogawa K, Ohtsuka M, Fuku N. A randomized study assessing the efficacy of communication skill training on patients’ psychologic distress and coping nurses’ communication with patients just after being diagnosed with cancer. Cancer. 2008;113:1462–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Liénard A, Merckaert I, Libert Y, Delvaux N, Marchal S, Boniver J, et al. Factors that influence cancer patients’ anxiety following a medical consultation: impact of a communication skills training programme for physicians. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:1450–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Merckaert I, Libert Y, Delvaux N, Marchal S, Boniver J, Etienne AM, et al. Factors influencing physicians’ detection of cancer patients’ and relatives’ distress: can a communication skills training program improve physicians’ detection? Psychooncology. 2008;17:260–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, et al. The European organization for research and treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:365–76.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/85.5.365.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Groenvold M, Petersen MA, Aaronson N, Arraras JI, Blazeby JM, Bottomley A, et al. The development of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL: a shortened questionnaire for cancer patients in palliative care. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42:55–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Hürny C, Bernhard J, Bacchi M, Van Wegberg B, Tomamichel M, Spek U, et al. Supportive care in Cancer The Perceived Adjustment to Chronic Illness scale (PACIS): a global indicator of coping for operable breast cancer patients in clinical trials. Support Care Cancer. 1993;1:200–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Fukuhara S, Suzukamo Y. Manual of the SF-8 Japanese version. Kyoto: Institute for Health Outcome & Process Evaluation Research; 2004.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Beck AT, Beck RW. Screening depressed patients in family practice: a rapid technique. Postgrad Med. 1972;52:81–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Harter M, Buchholz A, Nicolai J, Reuter K, Komarahadi F, Kriston L, et al. Shared decision making and the use of decision aids. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015;112:672–9.  https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2015.0672.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Mercer SW, Hatch DJ, Murray A, Murphy DJ, Eva KW. Capturing patients’ views on communication with anaesthetists: the CARE measure. Clin Govern Int J. 2008;13:128–37.  https://doi.org/10.1108/14777270810867320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Johnson LA, Gorman C, Morse R, Firth M, Rushbrooke S. Does communication skills training make a difference to patients’ experiences of consultations in oncology and palliative care services? Eur J Cancer Care. 2013;22:202–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Tulsky JA, Arnold RM, Alexander SC, Olsen MK, Jeffreys AS, Rodriguez KL, et al. Enhancing communication between oncologists and patients with a computer-based training program: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:593–601.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Cassileth B, Zupkis R, Sutton-Smith K, March V. Information and participation preferences among cancer patients. Ann Intern Med. 1980;92:832–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Pieterse A, Van Dulmen S, Ausems M, Schoemaker A, Beemer F, Bensing J. Quote-geneCA: development of a counselee-centered instrument to measure needs and preferences in genetic counseling for hereditary cancer. Psychooncology. 2005;14:361–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Pieterse AH, Van Dulmen AM, Beemer FA, Ausems MGEM, Bensing JM. Tailoring communication in cancer genetic counseling through individual video-supported feedback: a controlled pretest-posttest design. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60:326–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Holmes-Rovner M, Kroll J, Schmitt N, Rovner DR, Breer ML, Rothert ML, et al. Patient satisfaction with health care decisions: the satisfaction with decision scale. Med Decis Mak. 1996;16:58–64.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9601600114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    O’Connor A. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Mak. 1995;15:25–30.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9501500105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Zachariae R, Pedersen C, Christensen S, Bonde-Jensen A, Lehbrink M, Maase H. Development of a physician-patient relationship inventory (PPRI). Psychooncology. 2001;10:52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Hearn J, Higginson IJ. Development and validation of a core outcome measure for palliative care: the palliative care outcome scale. Qual Health Care. 1999;8:219–27.  https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.8.4.219.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Kriston L, Scholl I, Hölzel L, Simon D, Loh A, Härter M. The 9-item shared decision making questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80:94–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.034.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Razavi D, Delvaux N, Marchal S, Durieux J-F, Farvacques C, Dubus L, et al. Does training increase the use of more emotionally laden words by nurses when talking with cancer patients? a randomised study. Br J Cancer. 2002;87:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600412.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Timmermans LM, van der Maazen RWM, van Spaendonck KPM, Leer JWH, Kraaimaat FW. Enhancing patient participation by training radiation oncologists. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63:55–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Bylund CL, Brown R, Gueguen JA, Diamond C, Bianculli J, Kissane DW. The implementation and assessment of a comprehensive communication skills training curriculum for oncologists. Psychooncology. 2010;19:583–93.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1585.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Fallowfield L, Jenkins V, Farewell V, Solis-Trapala I. Enduring impact of communication skills training: results of a 12-month follow-up. Br J Cancer. 2003;89:1445–9.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601309.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Heaven C, Clegg J, Maguire P. Transfer of communication skills training from workshop to workplace: the impact of clinical supervision. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60:313–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Heaven CM, Maguire P. Training hospice nurses to elicit patient concerns. J Adv Nurs. 1996;23:280–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    van Weert JCM, Jansen J, Spreeuwenberg PMM, van Dulmen S, Bensing JM. Effects of communication skills training and a question prompt sheet to improve communication with older cancer patients: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2011;80:145–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2010.10.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Wilkinson S, Bailey K, Aldridge J, Roberts A. A longitudinal evaluation of a communication skills programme. Palliat Med. 1999;13:341–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Wilkinson SM, Gambles M, Roberts A. The essence of cancer care: the impact of training on nurses’ ability to communicate effectively. J Adv Nurs. 2002;40:731–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Ford S, Hall A, Ratcliffe D, Fallowfield L. The medical interaction process system (MIPS): an instrument for analysing interviews of oncologists and patients with cancer. Soc Sci Med. 2000;50:553–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Back AL, Arnold RM, Baile WF, Fryer-Edwards KA, Alexander SC, Barley GE, et al. Efficacy of communication skills training for giving bad news and discussing transitions to palliative care. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:453–60.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.167.5.453.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Canivet D, Delvaux N, Gibon A-S, Brancart C, Slachmuylder J-L, Razavi D. Improving communication in cancer pain management nursing: a randomized controlled study assessing the efficacy of a communication skills training program. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22:3311–20.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-014-2357-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Goelz T, Wuensch A, Stubenrauch S, Ihorst G, De Figueiredo M, Bertz H, et al. Specific training program improves oncologists’ palliative care communication skills in a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:3402–7.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.31.6372.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Kruijver IP, Kerkstra A, Kerssens JJ, Holtkamp CC, Bensing JM, van de Wiel HB. Communication between nurses and simulated patients with cancer: evaluation of a communication training programme. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2001;5:140–50; discussion 151-3.  https://doi.org/10.1054/ejon.2001.0139.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Kruse J, Schmitz N, Wöller W, Clar B, Meier E, Grinschgl A. Effekte eines psychosozialen Fortbildungsprogramms zur Verbesserung der Arzt-Patient-Interaktion mit Krebspatienten; 2003. p. 232–45.Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Libert Y, Merckaert I, Reynaert C, Delvaux N, Marchal S, Etienne AM, et al. Physicians are different when they learn communication skills: influence of the locus of control. Psychooncology. 2007;16:553–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Maguire P, Booth K, Elliott C, Jones B. Helping health professionals involved in cancer care acquire key interviewing skills - the impact of workshops. Eur J Cancer. 1996;32:1486–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Meystre C, Bourquin C, Despland JN, Stiefel F, De Roten Y. Working alliance in communication skills training for oncology clinicians: a controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;90:233–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Lienard A, Merckaert I, Libert Y, Bragard I, Delvaux N, Etienne AM, et al. Is it possible to improve residents breaking bad news skills? a randomised study assessing the efficacy of a communication skills training program. Br J Cancer. 2010;103:170–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Ullrich P, Wollbrück D, Danker H, Singer S. Evaluation of psycho-social training for speech therapists in oncology. Impact on general communication skills and empathy. A qualitative pilot study. J Cancer Educ. 2011;26:294–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Brédart A, Bouleuc C, Dolbeault S. Doctor-patient communication and satisfaction with care in oncology. Curr Opin Oncol. 2005;17:351–4.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.cco.0000167734.26454.30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Schapira L. Communication skills training in clinical oncology: the ASCO position reviewed and an optimistic personal perspective. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2003;46:25–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Kruijver I, Kerkstra A. Nurse-patient communication in cancer care: a review of the literature. Cancer. 2000;23:20–31.Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Davies E, Higginson IJ. Communication, information and support for adults with malignant cerebral glioma: a systematic literature review. Support Care Cancer. 2003;11:21–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-002-0392-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    de Haes H, Teunissen S. Communication in palliative care: a review of recent literature. Curr Opin Oncol. 2005;17:345–50.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.cco.0000167735.26454.79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Maguire P. Improving communication with cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35:2058–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Pham AK, Bauer MT, Balan S. Closing the patient-oncologist communication gap: a review of historic and current efforts. J Cancer Educ. 2014;29:106–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Kissane DW, Bylund CL, Banerjee SC, Bialer PA, Levin TT, Maloney EK, et al. Communication skills training for oncology professionals. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1242–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Butler L, Degner L, Baile W. SCRN communication team, Landry M. developing communication competency in the context of cancer: a critical interpretive analysis of provider training programs. Psychooncology. 2005;14:861–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Bousquet G, Orri M, Winterman S, Brugiere C, Verneui L, Revah-Levy A. Breaking bad news in oncology: a metasynthesis. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2437–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Rodin G, MacKay JA, Zimmermann C, Mayer C, Howell D, Katz M, et al. Clinician-patient communication: a systematic review. Support Care Cancer. 2009;17:627–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Turner J, Kelly B, Girgis A. Supporting oncology health professionals: a review. Psycho-Oncologie. 2011;5:77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Carlson LE, Feldman-Stewart D, Tishelman C, Brundage MD, Hack T, Degner L, et al. Patient-professional communication research in cancer: an integrative review of research methods in the context of a conceptual framework. Psychooncology. 2005;14:812–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Baile WF, Aaron J. Patient-physician communication in oncology: past, present, and future. Curr Opin Oncol. 2005;17:331–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Merckaert I, Libert Y, Razavi D. Communication skills training in cancer care: where are we and where are we going? Curr Opin Oncol. 2005;17:319–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Rao JK, Anderson LA, Inui TS, Frankel RM. Communication interventions make a difference in conversations between physicians and patients: a systematic review of the evidence. Med Care. 2007;45:340–9.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000254516.04961.d5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Kiessling C, Bauer J, Gartmeier M, Iblher P, Karsten G, Kiesewetter J, et al. Development and validation of a computer-based situational judgement test to assess medical students' Communication skills in the field of shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99:1858–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.06.006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Valderas JM, Ferrer M, Mendívil J, Garin O, Rajmil L, Herdman M, et al. Development of EMPRO: a tool for the standardized assessment of patient-reported outcome measures. Value Health. 2008;11:700–8.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00309.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s). 2019

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Fischer
    • 1
    Email author
  • S. Helmer
    • 2
  • A. Rogge
    • 2
  • J. I. Arraras
    • 3
  • A. Buchholz
    • 4
  • A. Hannawa
    • 5
  • M. Horneber
    • 6
  • A. Kiss
    • 7
  • M. Rose
    • 1
    • 8
  • W. Söllner
    • 9
  • B. Stein
    • 9
  • J. Weis
    • 10
  • P. Schofield
    • 11
    • 12
    • 13
  • C. M. Witt
    • 2
    • 14
    • 15
  1. 1.Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Center for Internal Medicine and DermatologyCharité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of HealthBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health EconomicsCharité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of HealthBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Radiotherapeutic Oncology Department & Medical Oncology DepartmentComplejo Hospitalario de NavarraPamplonaSpain
  4. 4.Department of Medical Psychology, Centre for Psychosocial MedicineUniversity Medical CentreHamburgGermany
  5. 5.Center for the Advancement of Healthcare Quality and Patient Safety (CAHQS), Faculty of Communication SciencesUniversità della Svizzera ItalianaLuganoSwitzerland
  6. 6.Department of Internal Medicine, Divisions of Pneumology and Oncology/HematologyParacelsus Medical University, Klinikum NuernbergNuernbergGermany
  7. 7.Department of Psychosomatic MedicineUniversity Hospital BaselBaselSwitzerland
  8. 8.Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Outcomes Measurement ScienceUniversity of Massachusetts Medical SchoolWorcesterUSA
  9. 9.Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and PsychotherapyParacelsus Medical University, Nuremberg General HospitalNurembergGermany
  10. 10.Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Self-Help ResearchFaculty of Medicine and Medical Center University of FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  11. 11.Department of PsychologySwinburne UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  12. 12.Department of Cancer Experiences ResearchPeter MacCallum Cancer CentreMelbourneAustralia
  13. 13.Sir Peter MacCallum Department of OncologyThe University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  14. 14.Institute for Complementary and Integrative MedicineUniversity Hospital Zurich and University of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  15. 15.Center for Integrative MedicineUniversity of Maryland School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations