Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23543521›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013

Communication skills training for healthcare professionals working with people who have cancer.

Philippa M Moore, Solange Rivera Mercado, Mónica Grez Artigues, Theresa A Lawrie

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 107 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
107citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Communicating Actively Responding Empathically (CARE): Comparison of Communication Training Workshops for Health Professionals Working in Cancer Care.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2020
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. EORTC QLQ-COMU26: a questionnaire for the assessment of communication between patients and professionals. Phase III of the module development in ten countries.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2017
    Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Improving communication in cancer pain management nursing: a randomized controlled study assessing the efficacy of a communication skills training program.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2014
    Trial

47 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Philippa M MooreFamily Medicine, P. Universidad Catolica de Chile, Lira 44, Santiago, Chile. moore.philippa@gmail.com
Solange Rivera Mercado
Mónica Grez Artigues
Theresa A Lawrie

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis is an updated version of a review that was originally published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2004, Issue 2. People with cancer, their families and carers have a high prevalence of psychological stress which may be minimised by effective communication and support from their attending healthcare professionals (HCPs). Research suggests communication skills do not reliably improve with experience, therefore, considerable effort is dedicated to courses that may improve communication skills for HCPs involved in cancer care. A variety of communication skills training (CST) courses have been proposed and are in practice. We conducted this review to determine whether CST works and which types of CST, if any, are the most effective.

objectivesTo assess whether CST is effective in improving the communication skills of HCPs involved in cancer care, and in improving patient health status and satisfaction. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 2, 2012, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo and CINAHL to February 2012. The original search was conducted in November 2001. In addition, we handsearched the reference lists of relevant articles and relevant conference proceedings for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: The original review was a narrative review that included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled before-and-after studies. In this updated version, we limited our criteria to RCTs evaluating 'CST' compared with 'no CST' or other CST in HCPs working in cancer care. Primary outcomes were changes in HCP communication skills measured in interactions with real and/or simulated patients with cancer, using objective scales. We excluded studies whose focus was communication skills in encounters related to informed consent for research. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials and extracted data to a pre-designed data collection form. We pooled data using the random-effects model and, for continuous data, we used standardised mean differences (SMDs). MAIN

resultsWe included 15 RCTs (42 records), conducted mainly in outpatient settings. Eleven studies compared CST with no CST intervention, three studies compared the effect of a follow-up CST intervention after initial CST training, and one study compared two types of CST. The types of CST courses evaluated in these trials were diverse. Study participants included oncologists (six studies), residents (one study) other doctors (one study), nurses (six studies) and a mixed team of HCPs (one study). Overall, 1147 HCPs participated (536 doctors, 522 nurses and 80 mixed HCPs).Ten studies contributed data to the meta-analyses. HCPs in the CST group were statistically significantly more likely to use open questions in the post-intervention interviews than the control group (five studies, 679 participant interviews; P = 0.04, I² = 65%) and more likely to show empathy towards patients (six studies, 727 participant interviews; P = 0.004, I² = 0%); we considered this evidence to be of moderate and high quality, respectively. Doctors and nurses did not perform statistically significantly differently for any HCP outcomes.There were no statistically significant differences in the other HCP communication skills except for the subgroup of participant interviews with simulated patients, where the intervention group was significantly less likely to present 'facts only' compared with the control group (four studies, 344 participant interviews; P = 0.01, I² = 70%).There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to outcomes assessing HCP 'burnout', patient satisfaction or patient perception of the HCPs communication skills. Patients in the control group experienced a greater reduction in mean anxiety scores in a meta-analyses of two studies (169 participant interviews; P = 0.02; I² = 8%); we considered this evidence to be of a very low quality. AUTHORS'

conclusionsVarious CST courses appear to be effective in improving some types of HCP communication skills related to information gathering and supportive skills. We were unable to determine whether the effects of CST are sustained over time, whether consolidation sessions are necessary, and which types of CST programs are most likely to work. We found no evidence to support a beneficial effect of CST on HCP 'burnout', patients' mental or physical health, and patient satisfaction.

Indexed as

CommunicationCaregiversHealth PersonnelHumansMedical OncologyNeoplasmsOncology NursingProfessional-Patient RelationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStress, Psychological

Identifiers

PMID23543521
PMCPMC6457800

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.