Background: Information provision about prognosis, treatments, and side-effects is important in advanced cancer, yet also associated with impaired patient well-being. To counter potential detrimental effects, communication strategies based on placebo and nocebo effect mechanisms might be promising to apply in daily practice. This study aimed to provide more insight into how often and how oncologists use expectancy and empathy expressions in consultations with patients with advanced breast cancer. Methods: Forty-five consultations between oncologists and patients were audiotaped. To determine how often expectancy and empathy expressions were used, a coding scheme was created. Most consultations ( n = 33) were coded and discussed by two coders, and the remaining 13 were coded by one coder. To determine how expectancy and empathy expressions were used, principles of inductive content analysis were followed. Results: Discussed evaluation (i.e., scan) results were good ( n = 26,58%) or uncertain ( n = 12,27%) and less often bad ( n = 7,15%). Uncertain expectations about prognosis, treatment outcomes, and side effects occurred in 13, 38, and 27 consultations (29%, 85%, and 56%), followed by negative expectations in 8, 26, and 28 consultations (18%, 58%, and 62%) and positive expectations in 6, 34, and 17 consultations (13%, 76%, and 38%). When oncologists provided expectancy expressions, they tapped into three different dimensions: relational, personal, and explicit. Positive expectations emphasized the doctor–patient relationship, while negative expectations focused on the severity of the illness, and uncertainty was characterized by a balance between (potential) negative outcomes and hope. Observed generic or specific empathy expressions were regularly provided, most frequently understanding ( n = 29,64% of consultations), respecting ( n = 17,38%), supporting ( n = 16,36%), and exploring ( n = 16,36%). A lack of empathy occurred less often and contained, among others, not responding to patients’ emotional concerns ( n = 13,27% of consultations), interrupting ( n = 7,16%), and an absence of understanding ( n = 4,9%). Conclusion: In consultations with mainly positive or uncertain medical outcomes, oncologists predominantly made use of uncertain expectations ( hope for the best, prepare for the worst ) and used several empathic behaviors. Replication studies, e.g., in these and other medical situations, are needed. Follow-up studies should test the effect of specific communication strategies on patient outcomes, to counter potential negative effects of information provision. Studies should focus on uncertain situat...

Background: Empathy is a cornerstone of effective communication. However, clinicians' and patients' perceptions of clinician-expressed empathy might differ. The independent perceptions of patients and clinicians on clinician-expressed empathy in advanced cancer consultations and the associations of these perceptions with patient outcomes are unknown. Objective: We assessed (1) patients' and clinicians' independent perceptions of clinician-(self-)expressed empathy in advanced cancer consultations and (2) the associations between these perceptions and affective patient outcomes. Methods: This observational study included data from 41 consultations in the advanced breast cancer setting. Postconsultation, patients' and clinicians' perceptions of clinician-expressed empathy were assessed, as well as patients' (1) pre-post anxiety, (2) post-anxiety, (3) emotional well-being, and (4) satisfaction. Multilevel regression analyses were run to draw conclusions. Results: Patients perceived higher levels of empathy than clinicians, without a significant relationship between the two (mean [M] = 85.47, standard deviation [SD] = 14.00 vs. M = 61.88, SD = 15.30, 0-100 scale; b = 0.14, p < 0.138, 95% confidence interval [CI] = À0.04 to 0.32). Higher patient-perceived empathy was associated with decreased anxiety [(1) b = À0.67, p = 0.039, 95% CI = À1.30 to À0.03; (2) b = À0.15, p = 0.042, 95% CI = À0.30 to À0.01], higher satisfaction (b = 0.05, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.03 to 0.08), and lower emotional distress (b = À0.32, p < 0.001, 95% CI = À0.48 to À0.16). There were no associations with clinicians' perceptions [(1) b = À0.34, p = 0.307, 95% CI = À1.00 to 0.31; (2) b = À0.02, p = 0.824, 95% CI = À0.17 to 0.14; (3) b < 0.01, p = 0.918, 95% CI = À0.03 to 0.02; (4) b = 0.08, p = 0.335, 95% CI = À0.08 to 0.25]. Conclusions: Patients' and clinicians' empathy perceptions differed. In improving patient outcomes, the focus should be on patients' perceptions of clinician-expressed empathy. Future research could focus on ways to elicit patients' perceptions of empathy with the higher aim of improving patient outcomes.

No abstract