Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12804489›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2003

Communication skills training for health care professionals working with cancer patients, their families and/or carers.

D Fellowes, S Wilkinson, P Moore

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Communication training for professionals.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2003
    Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

D FellowesDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, Royal Free and University College Medical School, Royal Free Campus, Rowland Hill Street, London, London, UK, NW3 2PF. debf@northrock.bm
S Wilkinson
P Moore

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch suggests communication skills do not reliably improve with experience and considerable effort is dedicated to courses improving communication skills for health professionals. The evaluation of such courses is of importance to enable evidence-based teaching and practice.

objectivesTo assess whether communication skills training is effective in changing behaviour of health professionals in cancer care with regard to communication/interaction with patients. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (Cochrane Library Issue 3 2001), MEDLINE (1966 to November 2001), EMBASE (1980 to November 2001), PsycInfo (1887 to November 2001), CINAHL (1982 to November 2001), AMED (1985 - October 2001), Dissertation Abstracts International (1861 to March 2002) and EBM Reviews (1991 to March/April 2001). Reference lists of relevant articles were searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials or controlled before and after studies of communication skills training in cancer health professionals, measuring changes in behaviour/skills using objective and validated scales. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN

resultsAlthough 2822 references were considered, only two trials involving 232 health professionals were included. One provided an intensive three-day course then assessed oncology doctors interacting with a total of 640 patients; the other provided a modular course then used role plays with oncology nurses for skill assessment. In one trial, course attendees used more focused questions (34% increase, probability < 0.005), focused and open questions (27% increase, p = 0.005), expressions of empathy (69% increase, p < 0.005) and appropriate responses to cues (38% increase, p < 0.05) at follow up than non-attendees. No significant differences were found between attendees and non-attendees in use of leading questions. From baseline to follow up in the same study, attendees had significantly different changes in rates of leading questions (relative risk 0.72, p < 0.05), focused questions (Relative Risk 1.25, p < 0.005), open questions (RR 1.17, p < 0.05) and empathy (RR 1.50, p = 0.005). The only significant difference in observed communication skills in the second trial was that the trained group were more in control of the follow-up interview than the untrained group (p < 0.05). Both studies investigated differences in summarising, interrupting and checking but found none. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThe training programmes assessed by these trials appear to be effective in improving cancer care professionals communication skills. It is not known whether the training would be effective if taught by other educators, nor has any trial compared the efficacy of both programmes.

Indexed as

CommunicationCaregiversHumansMedical OncologyNeoplasmsProfessional-Patient RelationsRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.