Authors
Ellen Smets
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Abstract
Introduction: Uncertainty is omnipresent in cancer care, including the ambiguity of diagnostic tests, efficacy and side effects of treatments, and/or patients' long-term prognosis. During second opinion consultations, uncertainty may be particularly tangible: doubts and uncertainty may drive patients to seek more information and request a second opinion, whereas the second opinion in turn may also affect patients' level of uncertainty. Providers are tasked to clearly discuss all of these uncertainties with patients who may feel overwhelmed by it. The aim of this study was to explore how oncologists communicate about uncertainty during second opinion consultations in medical oncology.Methods: We performed a secondary qualitative analysis of audio-recorded consultations collected in a prospective study among cancer patients who sought a second opinion in medical oncology. We purposively selected 12 audio-recorded second opinion consultations. Any communication about uncertainty by the oncologist was double coded by two researchers and an inductive analytic approach was chosen to allow for novel insights to arise.Results: Seven approaches in which oncologists conveyed or addressed uncertainty were identified: specifying the degree of uncertainty, explaining reasons of uncertainty, providing personalized estimates of uncertainty to patients, downplaying or magnifying uncertainty, reducing or counterbalancing uncertainty, and providing support to facilitate patients in coping with uncertainty. Moreover, oncologists varied in their choice of words/language to convey uncertainty.Discussion: This study identified various approaches of how oncologists communicated uncertain issues during second opinion consultations. These different approaches could affect patients' perception of uncertainty, emotions provoked by it, and possibly even patients' behavior. For example, by minimizing uncertainty, oncologists may consciously steer patients toward specific medical decisions). Future research is needed to examine how these different ways of communicating about uncertainty affect patients. This could also facilitate a discussion about the desirability of certain communication strategies. Eventually, practical and evidence-based guidance needs to be developed for clinicians to optimally inform patients about uncertain issues and support patients in dealing with these.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.635422
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 72,564
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Fragility, Uncertainty, and Healthcare.Wendy A. Rogers & Mary J. Walker - 2016 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 37 (1):71-83.
Uncertain Science ... Uncertain World.Henry N. Pollack - 2003 - Cambridge University Press.
Uncertainty in Reservoir Modeling.Michael J. Pyrcz & Christopher D. White - 2015 - Interpretation: SEG 3 (2):SQ7-SQ19.
Personal Values and Cancer Treatment Refusal.M. Huijer - 2000 - Journal of Medical Ethics 26 (5):358-362.
Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science.Roger M. Cooke (ed.) - 1991 - Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-06-01

Total views
1 ( #1,558,356 of 2,533,574 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #390,861 of 2,533,574 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes