Assessing patients’ experiences with communication across the cancer care continuum

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the relevance, performance and potential usefulness of the Patient Assessment of cancer Communication Experiences (PACE) items. Methods Items focusing on specific communication goals related to exchanging information, fostering healing relationships, responding to emotions, making decisions, enabling self-management, and managing uncertainty were tested via a retrospective, cross-sectional survey of adults who had been diagnosed with cancer. Analyses examined response frequencies, inter-item correlations, and coefficient alpha. Results A total of 366 adults were included in the analyses. Relatively few selected “Does Not Apply”, suggesting that items tap relevant communication experiences. Ratings of whether specific communication goals were achieved were strongly correlated with overall ratings of communication, suggesting item content reflects important aspects of communication. Coefficient alpha was ≥.90 for each item set, indicating excellent reliability. Variations in the percentage of respondents selecting the most positive response across items suggest results can identify strengths and weaknesses. Conclusion The PACE items tap relevant, important aspects of communication during cancer care, and may be useful to cancer care teams desiring detailed feedback.

Cancer survivors' experiences with breakdowns in patient‐centered communication

“…Participants completed an online version of the Patient Assessment of Communication Experience (PACE) measure, a self‐report questionnaire grounded in the NCI model of patient‐centered communication . The PACE includes seven distinct item sets assessing cancer survivors' experiences across the cancer continuum overall (from the time cancer was suspected until the present) and within specific phases (eg, diagnosis, treatment decision making, and receiving chemotherapy).…”

“…Unfortunately, patient‐centered communication in cancer care is often lacking. Surveys report that a sizeable percentage of patients see their communication with cancer care providers as less than optimal, especially with respect to compassion, receiving information that is timely and relevant, respecting patient preferences, and ensuring coordination of care . Dissatisfaction with their interactions with health care providers can be considered communication “breakdowns” and in the minds of patients, can be as distressing as medical errors .…”

Assessing Patient-Centered Communication in Cancer Care: Measures for Surveillance of Communication Outcomes

“…Building on previous work funded by the National Cancer Institute, 2,22 we present a set of recently published 23 survey items for PCC surveillance that focus on communication outcomes (ie, whether key communication goals were achieved; Table 1). The survey items are conceptually grounded in a functional model of PCC in cancer care.…”

“…Such specificity increases the likelihood respondents will make more discriminating responses when pondering specific aspects of the care received. For example, in a recent study, Mazor et al 23 pilot tested the PCC items listed in Table 1 with a panel of cancer survivors who were asked to evaluate their communication with cancer care providers over the course of their care (from suspicion of cancer to post-treatment). The percentage of patients answering less than "always" to the items listed in Table 1 ranged from 21% to 38%.…”

Patient and family communication during consultation visits: The effects of a decision aid for treatment decision-making for localized prostate cancer

“…Yet, commonly used patient self-reported retrospective data increase the risk for flawed recall [34] and social desirability bias [35]. Furthermore provider reported patient data do not reflect patient communication and participation in decision-making [30,36]. No decision aid studies to-date have assessed the real-time communication behaviors of patients with localized prostate cancer and their family members using audiotaped or videotaped data during treatment decision-making consultation visits.…”