Optimising methods for communicating survival data to patients undergoing cancer surgery☆
Introduction
Informing patients of the potential advantages of cancer surgery primarily includes communication of expected survival benefits synthesised from available evidence. It is necessary to effectively explain operative risks and to describe the longer term consequences of surgery on patient’s health. In most healthcare settings this is the responsibility of the operating surgeon. Ensuring that information is understandable and relevant will also meet patients’ information needs and the standards required for informed consent for surgery.1, 2, 3
Communicating survival information effectively is complex because of the sensitive nature of the information and the potential problems with misunderstanding numerical concepts. Recent work has shown that after cancer surgery patients prefer surgeons to initiate these discussions and that most patients want to discuss this type of sensitive data.4, 5, 6, 7 Options to improve patient understanding of survival data are to supplement traditional narrative consultations with graphs in a simple clear format or to use pictographs illustrating proportions of alive patients.5, 8 The aim of this study was to examine patient understanding of different graphical presentation types of survival data or information expressed as narrative alone and to investigate whether understanding was influenced by clinical and socio-demographic variables.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
Patients were identified from the colorectal multi-disciplinary cancer team records at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust. Eligible for the study were those with carcinoma of the colon, rectum or anus that had completed, were undergoing or awaiting potentially curative treatment, including surgery, surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy or pre-operative radiotherapy. Patients were excluded if there was evidence of concurrent malignancy or if they could not speak and understand
Results
Seventy patients participated (42 male, 60%) of which the majority (n = 66, 94%) were interviewed in their homes. Socio-demographic and clinical data are presented (Table 1). Most participants correctly interpreted each presentation style, with understanding ranging from 96% (n = 67) for the simplified Kaplan–Meier curve to 76% (n = 53) for the narrative alone (Table 2). Indeed, examination of the 95% confidence intervals suggests that understanding of the narrative alone was dramatically poorer than
Discussion
This study has demonstrated that most patients correctly understand prognostic data when presented graphically. The traditional narrative alone was least well understood, especially by women, although 61% of women and 86% of men accurately interpreted the written text. Multivariable analyses adjusting for potential confounding factors suggested that increasing age was associated with poorer understanding of all formats. It is recommended, based on these data, that graphical information is used
Sources of funding
University of Bristol Cancer Research Fund; A.G.K.M. is funded by a fellowship from the Royal College of Surgeons of England.
Conflict of interest statement
None declared.
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge the consultants responsible for the clinical care of the patients in this study: Mr. Paul Durdey, Mr. Paul Sylvester and Mr. Rob Longman. This study was supported by the University of Bristol Cancer Research Fund. A.G.K.M. is funded by a fellowship from the Royal College of Surgeons of England.
References (27)
- et al.
Communicating risk information: the influence of graphical display format on quantitative information perception-accuracy, comprehension and preferences
Patient Educ Couns
(2007) - et al.
Improving understanding of adjuvant therapy options by using simpler risk graphics
Cancer
(2007) - et al.
Effective communication skills are the key to good cancer care
Eur J Cancer
(1999) - et al.
Communication skills and psychological training in oncology
Eur J Cancer
(1997) Communication skills: when, not if, to teach
Eur J Cancer
(1996)Improving communication with cancer patients
Eur J Cancer
(1999)- Department of Health. Better information, better choices, better health: Putting information at the centre of health....
- General Medical Council. Good Medical Practice; 2006....
- Department of Health. The NHS constitution for England. Department of Health. 21-1-2009. Department of...
- et al.
Patient preferences for the disclosure of prognosis after esophagectomy for cancer with curative intent
Ann Surg Oncol
(2008)
Discussing life expectancy with surgical patients: do patients want to know and how should this information be delivered?
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
Information needs of patients with cancer: results from a large study in UK cancer centres
Br J Cancer
Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations
Med Decis Making
Cited by (0)
- ☆
Conference presentations: National Cancer Research Institute Conference (October 2009, Birmingham, UK); Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland Annual Congress (April 2010, Liverpool, UK).