Objective: It is not known how often physicians use metaphors and analogies, or whether they improve patients' perceptions of their physicians' ability to communicate effectively. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine whether the use of metaphors and analogies in difficult conversations is associated with better patient ratings of their physicians' communication skills. Design: Cross-sectional observational study of audio-recorded conversations between patients and physicians. Setting: Three outpatient oncology practices. Patients: Ninety-four patients with advanced cancer and 52 physicians. Intervention: None. Main outcome measures: Conversations were reviewed and coded for the presence of metaphors and analogies. Patients also completed a 6-item rating of their physician's ability to communicate. Results: In a sample of 101 conversations, coders identified 193 metaphors and 75 analogies. Metaphors appeared in approximately twice as many conversations as analogies did (65=101, 64% versus 31=101, 31%; sign test p < 0.001). Conversations also contained more metaphors than analogies (mean 1.6, range 0-11 versus mean 0.6, range 0-5; sign rank test p < 0.001). Physicians who used more metaphors elicited better patient ratings of communication (r ¼ 0.27; p ¼ 0.006), as did physicians who used more analogies (Spearman r ¼ 0.34; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The use of metaphors and analogies may enhance physicians' ability to communicate.

The findings illustrate that the strength of intentions, which varies depending on the specific practice, can predict implementation. More generally, the studies demonstrate how measures of intention can aid efforts to identify implementation barriers. The approach taken can be applied to study implementation of any practices designed to improve student health.

BACKGROUND:The requirement that patients give up curative treatment makes hospice enrollment unappealing for some patients and may particularly limit use among African‐American patients. The current study was conducted to determine whether African‐American patients with cancer are more likely than white patients to have preferences for cancer treatment that exclude them from hospice and whether they are less likely to want specific hospice services.METHODS:Two hundred eighty‐three patients who were receiving treatment for cancer at 6 oncology clinics within the University of Pennsylvania Cancer Network completed conjoint interviews measuring their perceived need for 5 hospice services and their preferences for continuing cancer treatment. Patients were followed for 6 months or until death.RESULTS:African‐American patients had stronger preferences for continuing their cancer treatments on a 7‐point scale even after adjusting for age, sex, finances, education, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, quality of life, and physical and psychologic symptom burden (adjusted mean score, 4.75 vs 3.96; β coefficient, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.22‐1.41 [P = .007]). African‐American patients also had greater perceived needs for hospice services after adjusting for these characteristics (adjusted mean score, 2.31 vs 1.83; β coefficient, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.11‐0.92 [P = .01]). However, this effect disappeared after adjusting for household finances.CONCLUSIONS:Hospice eligibility criteria may exclude African‐American patients disproportionately despite greater perceived needs for hospice services in this population. The mechanisms driving this health disparity likely include both cultural differences and economic characteristics, and consideration should be given to redesigning hospice eligibility criteria. Cancer 2009. © 2008 American Cancer Society.

Background Behavioral intention (which captures one’s level of motivation to perform a behavior) is considered a causal and proximal mechanism influencing the use of evidence-based practice (EBP). Implementation studies have measured intention differently, and it is unclear which is most predictive. Some use items referring to “evidence-based practice” in general, whereas others refer to a specific EBP. There are also unresolved debates about whether item stems should be worded “I intend to,” “I will,” or “How likely are you to” and if a single-item measure can suffice. Using each stem to refer to either a specific EBP or to “evidence-based practice,” this study compares the ability of these commonly used measures to predict future EBP implementation. The predictive validity is important for causal model testing and the development of effective implementation strategies. Methods A longitudinal study enrolled 70 teachers to track their use of two EBPs and compare the predictive validity of six different items measuring teachers’ intention. The measures differ by whether an item refers to a specific EBP, or to “evidence-based practices” in general, and whether the stem is worded in one of the three ways: “I intend to,” “I will,” or “How likely are you to.” For each item, linear regressions estimated the variance in future behavior explained. We also compared the predictive validity of a single item versus an aggregate of items by inter-correlating the items using different stems and estimating the explained variance in EBP implementation. Results Depending on the EBP and how intention was measured, the explained variance in implementation ranged from 3.5 to 29.0%. Measures that referred to a specific EBP, rather than “evidence-based practices” in general, accounted for more variance in implementation (e.g., 29.0% vs. 8.6%, and 11.3% vs. 3.5%). The predictive validity varied depending on whether stems were worded “I intend to,” “I will,” or “How likely are you to.” Conclusions The observed strength of the association between intentions and EBP use will depend on how intention is measured. The association was much stronger if an item referred to a specific EBP, rather than EBP in general. To predict implementation, the results support using an aggregate of two or three intention items that refer to the specific EBP. An even more pragmatic measure of intention consisting of a single item can also predict implementation. As discussed, the relationship will also vary depending on the EBP, which has direct implications for causal model testing and the design of implementation strategies.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) can improve anxiety and depression in autistic adults, but few autistic adults receive this treatment. We examined factors that may influence clinicians' use of CBT with autistic adults. One hundred clinicians completed an online survey. Clinicians reported stronger intentions (p = .001), more favorable attitudes (p < .001), greater normative pressure (p < .001), and higher self-efficacy (p < .001) to start CBT with non-autistic adults than with autistic adults. The only significant predictor of intentions to begin CBT with clients with anxiety or depression was clinicians' attitudes (p < .001), with more favorable attitudes predicting stronger intentions. These findings are valuable for designing effective, tailored implementation strategies to increase clinicians' adoption of CBT for autistic adults.