Abstract
Purpose
Communication in cancer care is multidimensional and may affect patient treatment decision-making and quality of life. This study examined cancer patients’ perceptions of the communication with their cancer specialists and explored its impact on the care they received and the financial burden they experienced.
Methods
Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 20 rural and 20 outer metropolitan Western Australians diagnosed with breast, lung, prostate or colorectal cancer. Thematic analysis using a phenomenological approach was undertaken to derive key themes regarding the communication experiences of the participants.
Results
Four main themes emerged: information context, communication about treatment options and treatment providers, communication about costs of treatment and impact of communication on continuity of care. The quality of the communication experienced by participants was variable and in many cases sub-optimal. This affected their ability to undertake well-informed decisions regarding treatment and providers and led to substantial out-of-pocket expenses for several participants. Whilst participants differed in their information needs and expectations, most participants trusted clinicians’ treatment recommendations.
Conclusions
Our results raise concerns about the quality of communication cancer patients receive during treatment and the repercussions for their treatment decisions and out-of-pocket expenses. Clear treatment and cost communication could empower patients in choosing treatment and providers. However, these findings suggest patients must remain vigilant during consultations and discuss available treatment pathways and their financial dimension to avoid costly treatments or missing out on available financial aid.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Patient-centred health care recognises the importance of patients’ engagement in their care and the value of this engagement for patient outcomes and quality of care [1]. Cancer patients have unique needs, and clear patient-centred communication is essential for good clinical practice in cancer [2, 3]. Poor communication in cancer care is multidimensional and exerts a negative influence on treatment decisions, symptom management, psychosocial experience and quality of life, with further ramifications for patient out-of-pocket expenses (OOPE) [4, 5]. Research suggests that health professionals need to discuss the financial consequences of diagnostic and treatment choices in the same way that they disclose treatment side effects [6], because financial distress caused by cancer treatment has been identified as a mortality risk factor [7, 8].
In Australia, with increasing cancer incidence and prevalence [9] and escalating costs for health care [10], the burden of cost is shifting to the patient [10]. Patients are reporting increasing financial burden from cancer care and associated direct and indirect OOPE [11,12,13,14]. Limited work has explored the relationship between communication and patient’s experiences of cost and OOPE [15]. Research suggests that conversations about treatment costs in clinician–patient interactions are rare and clinicians are often hesitant to initiate the conversation [16,17,18], whilst patients want to have the conversation [16, 19]. Cost discussions promote shared treatment decision-making and may lower OOPE, improve patient satisfaction and could facilitate more informed treatment decisions [15]. Clear cost communication has been endorsed in reports released by patient advocacy bodies, voicing the concerns of cancer patients [11, 20].
This study explored rural and outer metropolitan cancer patients’ perceptions of the communication with their cancer specialists, its impact on the quality of the care they received and the financial burden they have experienced.
Methods
Setting
WA’s health system
Western Australia (WA) is Australia’s largest state, spanning 2.5 million square kilometres. It has a population of just under 2.6 million [21], of which 80% reside in the Perth metropolitan area. The health system is a mix of services provided by the Federal and State Governments and private health care providers. Whilst tertiary hospitals in WA are located in the capital city, Perth, some densely populated outer metropolitan suburbs and large regional towns have hospitals with specialised cancer units. All Australians have universal access to primary care, and the right to receive public hospital services, for free either as a public patient or as a private patient with extra costs. People with private health insurance (57.1% of the Australian population [22]) have varying levels of cover for access to private hospitals and ancillary health services.
Cancer patients’ treatment pathways
Prior to diagnosis most symptomatic cancer patients present to a GP or a hospital emergency department. Access to a cancer specialist requires a referral usually initiated by a GP or a hospital clinician who has performed initial diagnostic tests. An individualised treatment plan is then developed, usually by a multidisciplinary team, and the treatment options are discussed with the patient.
We conducted a larger multimethod study that explored Western Australian cancer patients’ experiences during diagnosis and cancer treatment, which focused on patients’ experiences of their health care and associated OOPE. The current study is a secondary analysis of these data. Whilst not explicitly targeted in interviews, the emergence of strong themes surrounding communication with service providers prompted this secondary analysis.
Participant recruitment
Participants were recruited from the patient sample who took part in the Out-of-Pocket Expenses Study (OOPES), an ambi-directional cohort study investigating rural and outer metropolitan cancer patients’ OOPE as described elsewhere [23]. Eligible participants were recruited via the WA Cancer Registry and offered to opt-in to being contacted for a telephone interview regarding their OOPE experiences following completion of treatment. A purposive convenience sample of 40 respondents (20 participants from each of the OOPES primary regions of interest—outer metropolitan and rural) was selected to participate in semi-structured, in-depth interviews. This sample has been recommended as a size for phenomenological studies at which thematic saturation should be achieved [24, 25]. Eligible participants were selected based on region, diagnosis, age, health insurance status, employment status and a range of experiences (as reported in the questionnaires) (Table 1), with participant selection prioritising under-sampled characteristics as the interviews progressed.
Ethics
Ethics approval was obtained from the WA Country Health Service Ethics Committee (#2014:10) and the Department of Health WA Human Research Ethics Committee (#2014/26).
Data collection
Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted in 2016 and 2017 and audio recorded. They explored the patient experience throughout their diagnosis and treatment, with particular attention to the impact of costs following their cancer diagnosis and treatment. Interviews were on average 37 min long and guided by an interview schedule. Once all interviews were completed, they were transcribed verbatim by a third party (RS).
Data analysis
We adopted a phenomenological approach, as we did not want to constrain the analysis with preconceptions and potentially overlook important aspects of participants’ experiences [26]. Transcripts were read initially by project personnel (NSA, HH, JN). Preliminary line-by-line coding of each transcript was undertaken using the constant comparison method and NVivo, version 12, to identify and manage the codes. Thematic content analysis consisted of rereading the transcripts, identifying units of meaning, grouping those units into clusters and identifying a theme that expresses the essence of each cluster [27]. The codes were exported from NVivo into a Word document and NSA repeatedly read the transcripts to identify and consolidate the codes relating to communication into overarching themes and identify patterns between participants to connect main themes. JN reviewed the identified themes and their representative quotes to confirm their credibility. Any discrepancies were discussed and resolved. This cross-comparative approach facilitated the confirmation and validation of conclusions.
Results
Sample characteristics
Forty interviews were undertaken with 20 rural and 20 outer metropolitan participants diagnosed with breast (n = 11), prostate (n = 11), colorectal (n = 11) and lung (n = 7) cancer (Table 1).
Four themes were identified regarding participants’ communication experiences: information context, communication about treatment options and treatment providers, communication about costs of treatment and impact of communication on continuity of care. There were no notable differences between the themes that arose for outer metropolitan and rural participants; however, rural participants noted difficulty with transition of care between tertiary and rural health care providers.
Information context
The information context surrounding a cancer diagnosis encompasses the delivery, time, place and health professional providing the patient with information relating to their diagnosis and prognosis, as well as the quality and the quantity of the information provided the format, the clinical setting and the time allowed for the consultation. Disclosure of a cancer diagnosis was viewed as a norm by cancer patients; however, one rural participant reported that their doctor was reluctant to inform them of their diagnosis (Table 2, Q2.1).
Broadly, participants revealed that they were provided with plenty of oral and written information about their disease, treatment options and available support. Some found the information packages informative, explained in a way they could understand and a good reference resource (Table 2, Q2.2–Q2.6); others were overwhelmed by the information provided (Table 2, Q2.7–2.11). The need for a support person to be present at the appointments to assist with processing all the information provided was emphasised (Table 2, Q2.8). The complexity and intricacy of the information were a particularly strong sub-theme for participants who talked about the scary and unfamiliar terminology that they needed to “Google” or ask about, which some patients found to be “too much to handle” (Table 2, Q2.7, Q2.9, Q2.10). A participant treated in both the public and the private sector found the private sector more comprehensive when it came to delivery of information (Table 2, Q2.12).
Communication about treatment options and treatment providers
All participants were involved in making decisions about their treatment, and there were varying levels of trust placed in the recommendations of health professionals, friends and family or personal research. Many trusted the professional knowledge and personal recommendations of the referring clinician to help them choose a specialist and type of treatment (Table 3, Q3.1–Q3.3). However, several participants relied on friends or relatives for advice with treatment choices (Table 3, Q3.4) or on their own research into treatment options available locally, nationally and internationally. In some instances, this meant going against their specialists’ initial treatment recommendations (Table 3, Q3.5).
It was very important for participants to be well-informed about their treatment and the possible side effects.
They reported conflicting sentiments regarding the clinicians’ treatment planning and rationale. Whilst some were pleased with the care they received, others felt that they had not been well-informed about their treatment, its aim or rationale (Table 3, Q3.7–Q3.9). Lack of clarity about the importance of the timing of treatments was raised as an issue (Table 3, Q3.10).
Participants were concerned about communication practices regarding treatment options and side effects of treatments (Table 3, Q3.11–Q3.14). Some identified a reluctance by their specialist to discuss side effects and attributed this to the health providers’ lack of awareness about the importance of this information for the patient, unwillingness to acknowledge that some treatments can cause harm (Table 3, Q3.11–Q3.13) and lack of personal experience with the treatment (Table 3, Q3.14).
The importance of self-advocacy to ensure that patient needs were clearly expressed was acknowledged (Table 3, Q3.15–Q3.18). In some instances, this meant that participants needed to undertake extensive reading and be prepared for the consultation (Table 3, Q3.16). In other instances, it was a question of common sense and intuition to negotiate and navigate optimal care (Table 3, Q3.17–Q3.18).
Other sub-themes that arose included the importance of communication about available treatment providers, differences between treatment in the public and the private sector, the impact of private health insurance and availability of local services. Being offered a choice of treatment providers, including at a local level, and being in control of their treatment pathway was valued by participants (Table 3, Q3.19–Q3.21).
Participants with private health insurance expressed disappointment with providers who did not make the option of receiving care as public patients known to them (Table 3, Q3.22). Furthermore, the notion of fair access to free health services was discussed together with the lack of information regarding the available public and private treatment pathways and their associated costs (Table 3, Q3.23).
Communication about cost of treatment
Patients valued discussions about treatment options, providers and the associated costs, because such discussions increased participants’ control over their decision-making and financial situation (Table 4, Q4.1–Q4.3). The role of health professionals to help their patients navigate the health care system in the most cost-efficient manner was acknowledged. Having a doctor cognisant of the extent of patients’ treatment expenses, financial circumstances and attitude towards OOPE proved beneficial for some participants (Table 4, Q4.4). Being involved in the decision making process empowered patients to be in control of their finances whilst ensuring that they receive the best treatment (Table 4, Q4.3).
Conversely, several participants treated in the private sector acknowledged that cost of treatment had never been discussed and expressed disappointment with the lack of price transparency and cost-related discussions. Unexpected post-treatment bills were seen as an unnecessary surprise that could have been avoided if treatment costs had been discussed prior to receiving treatment (Table 4, Q4.5, Q4.6). The need for transparency regarding the costs of health and/or support services after discharge from the hospital, medications, gap payments and financial support available was evident (Table 4). The lack of awareness of services and costs prevented participants from accessing financial assistance (Table 4, Q4.7), lead to treatment non-adherence (Table 4, Q4.10) and caused unnecessary stress to patients and their families (Table 4, Q4.8, Q4.11).
Communication and continuity of care
Participants were aware of the role that health professionals at all levels of care had in their cancer journey (Table 5, Q5.3–Q5.8). Many credited their care providers for the smooth transitions between health providers within and between the public and the private sector, as well as between tertiary and secondary and rural services (Table 5, Q5.1, Q5.2).
The importance of local and hospital based cancer nurses in helping patients to navigate the health system was widely recognised. Nurses were considered a primary point of contact for health related issues and a reliable source of information when needed, whose emotional support was greatly appreciated (Table 5, Q5.15–Q5.20).
Navigation through the different interfaces of the health system proved challenging for some, particularly rural participants. Issues identified include lack of timely communication between health professionals involved in the patient’s care and gaps in communication between cancer specialists themselves, between specialists and patients and between specialist and rural health providers (Table 5, Q5.9–Q5.12). Participants acknowledged that their continuity of care and information needs had been impaired by the lack of connection and clear communication between specialist and primary care providers (Table 5, Q5.12, Q5.24–Q5.25). Additionally, some participants perceived limited continuity of care in the public sector (Table 5, Q5.13, Q5.14) that was attributed to the change in staff and system organisation (i.e. the appointment being with the consultant but being seen by a registrar).
Another sub-theme was patient dissatisfaction with the decreasing level of support as they transitioned from active treatment to survivorship or other types of care. Once the patient’s condition was under control, the number of appointments reduced and the connection with cancer specialists weakened. Participants felt abandoned and left to navigate their ongoing health issues in a health care system they perceived as complex and costly (Table 5, Q5.21–Q5.23).
Discussion
Clinician–patient communication emerged as a prominent issue in interviews that explored patient experiences of the cost of a cancer diagnosis. Participants’ communication experiences were variable and in many cases did not meet their needs. Communication problems, described by some participants, affected their ability to undertake well-informed and unbiased decisions regarding treatment and providers—a fundamental right for cancer patients outlined in existing guidelines [1, 2, 28, 29]—and resulted in substantial OOPE.
In response to the growing body of recommendations for clear clinician–patient communication in the literature and from consumer organisations, clinician communication guidelines and training programs have been developed [30, 31] to support clinicians’ communication skills and improve cancer patient experiences [32, 33]. In Australia, both Medical and Surgical Oncology trainees have mandatory communication training; however, how this is implemented in clinical practice remains unclear. Despite these measures, our findings indicate that clinicians continue to avoid cost discussions and suggest that current communication practices and clinical guidelines have little impact on patient experiences and associated costs [34, 35].
We found that participants differed in their information needs and expectations, and most participants trusted clinicians’ treatment recommendations. This is consistent with previous research [36]; however, a minority faced medical paternalism and expressed a sense of disappointment in their treating clinicians’ refusal to respect their treatment preferences (Table 3). Sub-optimal communication has a detrimental impact on the quality of the decisions patients are able to make in relation to their treatment, and can increase the use of alternative and/or unnecessary treatments, lead to psychosocial distress, decrease patient satisfaction and may exert significant cost burden upon the patient [4].
Whilst all participants were involved in the decision making process, their level of involvement varied. Participants who were not informed about different treatment options and their possible side effects did not feel empowered to navigate their care. The lack of price transparency affected a number of participants. This disconnect observed in some clinician–patient interactions calls for clinicians to ensure they are sufficiently engaging patients in their care, understand their expectations and respect their needs [37, 38].
Optimal cancer care pathways (OCPs) have been endorsed in Australia and are being implemented nationally [39]. Although they promote quality cancer care and aim to ensure that all people diagnosed with cancer receive the best care, regardless of where they live or receive treatment, their implementation requires collaboration and communication between health professionals at all levels and with their patients. OCPs do not incorporate details about communication regarding options for care providers, quality and cost of care and patient experiences. These shortfalls could be addressed through systematic collection of standardised outcome metrics [40] and measuring outcomes that are important to patients, including cost experiences to empower patients to make informed decisions based on provider health outcomes [41]. Consequently, the need for optimal communication between doctors and patients and between health professionals regarding treatment options, providers, outcomes and costs becomes increasingly important [42]. In Australia, leading cancer organisations have developed a Standard for Informed Financial Consent, which encourages greater commitment and transparency from doctors and health care providers to inform patients of the costs. This includes providing full financial disclosure and an accurate fee estimate with updates to help patients navigate the financial implications of their diagnosis [43].
Informative and well-timed clinician–patient communication conducted at an appropriate level would empower patients in choosing treatment and providers, help health professionals to objectively assess patient’s needs, assist with the decision-making process and ensure smooth transitions of care across the care continuum. Our findings indicate that to facilitate the delivery of coordinated cancer care and to ensure prompt referral to specialist, allied health and supportive care services, health professionals should routinely undertake comprehensive assessment and screening of cancer patients for clinical, psychosocial and supportive care needs.
Finally, several participants in our study acknowledged the role of nurses in their care. The cancer nurse coordinator (CNC) service has been available in rural and metropolitan WA since 2006 and encompasses a broad range of psychosocial support and assistance with the coordination of care [44]. The role that CNCs play in patient care could be further explored, as greater accessibility could benefit patients who experience sub-optimal care coordination when transitioning between services and after the completion of active treatment.
This study has a number of messages to all health providers who care for patients with cancer. Building on a number of recommendations from the Breast Cancer Network Australia in their State of the Nation report [20], which are applicable to other cancers, we recommend that health providers ensure that:
-
1.
The level of engagement in treatment decision making is ascertained at each step of the patients’ journey.
-
2.
Rural patients are provided with information about diagnostic and treatment services available locally.
-
3.
Patients are well informed and given choice between public and private treatment providers.
-
4.
There is cost transparency for tests, procedures and treatments.
-
5.
Patients are fully informed of the treatment cost prior to treatment commencement.
-
6.
All patients have access to a cancer nurse.
-
7.
There is timely communication between all health providers involved in the patient’s care and continuum of care.
Strengths and limitations
Our findings and conclusions should be considered within the limitations of the overall study. Although we utilised a purposive sampling strategy to ensure that a diverse range of participants were represented in the data, lung cancer patients are underrepresented in the sample as they became progressively ill and many had passed away by the time of the interview. Due to the existing relationship between the interviewers and participants from previous follow-up in the OOPES study, social desirability bias may have emerged; however, this was deemed to be outweighed by the benefit of the rapport participants had with the interviewers. A particular strength of the study is that it reports on the experiences of rural and outer metropolitan cancer patients with four different cancer types and, thus, offers novel insight into the experience of these under-researched groups. However, we identified that there were no specific differences in the experience of these participant groups other than those reported regarding transitions of care.
Conclusion
Whilst a system-wide approach is needed to improve communication and transparency in cancer care, an open dialogue that incorporates patient values and personal circumstance with particular attention to financial standing should guide treatment discussions. Health care providers should regularly assess how the patient is travelling through the disease continuum and assist with referrals and coordination of care. This must be coupled with initiatives to successfully monitor and sustain improvements in patient communication and care; to ensure that patients’ information needs are met, the care they have received is of high quality and at an affordable cost.
References
Street RL Jr, Makoul G, Arora NK, Epstein RM (2009) How does communication heal? Pathways linking clinician-patient communication to health outcomes. Patient Educ Couns 74(3):295–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2008.11.015
Epstein RM, Street RL, Jr (2007) Patient-centered communication in cancer care: promoting healing and reducing suffering https://healthcaredelivery.cancer.gov/pcc/monograph.html. Accessed 4 May 2016
Johansen NJ, Saunders CM (2017) Value-based care in the worldwide battle against cancer. Cureus 9(2):e1039. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.1039
Thorne SE, Bultz BD, Baile WF (2005) Is there a cost to poor communication in cancer care?: a critical review of the literature. Psychooncology 14(10):875–884; discussion 885-876. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.947
Prouty CD, Mazor KM, Greene SM, Roblin DW, Firneno CL, Lemay CA, Robinson BE, Gallagher TH (2014) Providers’ perceptions of communication breakdowns in cancer care. J Gen Intern Med 29(8):1122–1130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-2769-1
Ubel PA, Abernethy AP, Zafar SY (2013) Full disclosure—out-of-pocket costs as side effects. N Engl J Med 369(16):1484–1486. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1306826
Ramsey SD, Bansal A, Fedorenko CR, Blough DK, Overstreet KA, Shankaran V, Newcomb P (2016) Financial insolvency as a risk factor for early mortality among patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 34(9):980–986. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.64.6620
PDQ Adult Treatment Editorial Board (2017) Financial toxicity (financial distress) and cancer treatment (PDQ®): patient version. National Cancer Institute (US) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK441635/. Accessed 24 Aug 2018
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2017) Cancer in Australia 2017. Cancer series no. 101. Cat. no. CAN 100. AIHW. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/cancer/cancer-in-australia-2017/contents/table-of-contents. Accessed 18 May 2017
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2017) Health expenditure Australia 2015–16. Health and welfare expenditure series no. 58. Cat. no. HWE 68. AIHW. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/health-welfare-expenditure/health-expenditure-australia-2015-16/data. Accessed 20 Nov 2017
Consumers Health Forum of Australia (2018) Out of pocket pain research report. https://chf.org.au/sites/default/files/20180404_oop_report.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2018
Economics DA (2017) Financial impacts of breast cancer in Australia. Deliotte. https://www2.deloitte.com/au/en/pages/economics/articles/financial-impact-breast-cancer-australia.html. Accessed 27 Sept 2017
Gordon LG, Beesley VL, Mihala G, Koczwara B, Lynch BM (2017) Reduced employment and financial hardship among middle-aged individuals with colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer Care 26(5). https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12744
Gordon LG, Walker SM, Mervin MC, Lowe A, Smith DP, Gardiner RA, Chambers SK (2017) Financial toxicity: a potential side effect of prostate cancer treatment among Australian men. European Journal of Cancer Care. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12392
Shih YT, Chien CR (2017) A review of cost communication in oncology: patient attitude, provider acceptance, and outcome assessment. Cancer 123(6):928–939. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30423
Hamel LM, Penner LA, Eggly S, Chapman R, Klamerus JF, Simon MS, Stanton SC, Albrecht TL (2017) Do patients and oncologists discuss the cost of cancer treatment? An observational study of clinical interactions between African American patients and their oncologists. J Oncol Pract 13(3):e249–e258. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2016.015859
Kim P (2007) Cost of cancer care: the patient perspective. J Clin Oncol 25(2):228–232. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.07.9111
Kelly RJ, Forde PM, Elnahal SM, Forastiere AA, Rosner GL, Smith TJ (2015) Patients and physicians can discuss costs of cancer treatment in the clinic. J Oncol Pract 11(4):308–312. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2015.003780
Bullock AJ, Hofstatter EW, Yushak ML, Buss MK (2012) Understanding patients’ attitudes toward communication about the cost of cancer care. J Oncol Pract 8(4):e50–e58. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2011.000418
Breast Cancer Network Australia (2018) State of the nation report. https://www.bcna.org.au/media/6656/sotn-report-lowres.pdf. Accessed 15 Jun 2018
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2017) 3101.0—Australian Demographic Statistics, Sep 2017. Australian Bureau of Statistics. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/PrimaryMainFeatures/3101.0?OpenDocument. Accessed 1 May 2018
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013) 4364.0.55.002—Australian Health Survey: health service usage and health related actions, 2011–12. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/lookup/E334D0A98272E4DCCA257B39000F2DCF. Accessed 1 May 2018
Newton JC, Johnson CE, Hohnen H, Bulsara M, Ives A, McKiernan S, Platt V, McConigley R, Slavova-Azmanova NS, Saunders C (2018) Out-of-pocket expenses experienced by rural Western Australians diagnosed with cancer. Support Care Cancer 26:3543–3552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-018-4205-2
Creswell JW (2007) Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches / John W. Creswell. Qualitative inquiry and research design. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
Morse JM (1994) Designing funded qualitative research
Given LM (2008) The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Sage publications, Thousand Oaks
Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101
Cancer Council Australia (2014) Ideal oncology curriculum—communication skills—communication and counselling. Cancer Council Australia. https://wiki.cancer.org.au/oncologyformedicalstudents_mw/index.php?oldid=1590. Accessed 17 April 2018
National Cancer Institute (2018) Communication in Cancer Care (PDQ®)–health professional version. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/coping/adjusting-to-cancer/communication-hp-pdq. Accessed 17 April 2018
Cancer Council Victoria Victorian Cancer Clinicians Communication Program. https://www.cancervic.org.au/for-health-professionals/training-education/vcccp. Accessed 19 November 2018 2018
Cancer Australia Communication skills training https://canceraustralia.gov.au/clinical-best-practice/cancer-learning/communication-skills-training. Accessed 19 Nov 2018 2018
van Dongen JJJ, de Wit M, Smeets HWH, Stoffers E, van Bokhoven MA, Daniels R (2017) “They are talking about me, but not with me”: a focus group study to explore the patient perspective on Interprofessional team meetings in primary care. Patient 10(4):429–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0214-3
Rocque R, Leanza Y (2015) A systematic review of patients’ experiences in communicating with primary care physicians: intercultural encounters and a balance between vulnerability and integrity. PLoS One 10(10):e0139577. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139577
Nekhlyudov L, Levit L, Hurria A, Ganz PA (2014) Patient-centered, evidence-based, and cost-conscious cancer care across the continuum: translating the Institute of Medicine report into clinical practice. CA Cancer J Clin 64(6):408–421. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21249
Sullivan R, Peppercorn J, Sikora K, Zalcberg J, Meropol NJ, Amir E, Khayat D, Boyle P, Autier P, Tannock IF, Fojo T, Siderov J, Williamson S, Camporesi S, McVie JG, Purushotham AD, Naredi P, Eggermont A, Brennan MF, Steinberg ML, De Ridder M, McCloskey SA, Verellen D, Roberts T, Storme G, Hicks RJ, Ell PJ, Hirsch BR, Carbone DP, Schulman KA, Catchpole P, Taylor D, Geissler J, Brinker NG, Meltzer D, Kerr D, Aapro M (2011) Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries. Lancet Oncol 12(10):933–980. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70141-3
Salmon P, Young B (2017) A new paradigm for clinical communication: critical review of literature in cancer care. Med Educ 51(3):258–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13204
Doyle C, Lennox L, Bell D (2013) A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open 3(1):e001570. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001570
Wollins DS, Zafar SY (2016) A touchy subject: can physicians improve value by discussing costs and clinical benefits with patients? Oncologist 21(10):1157–1160. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0207
Australian Government Department of Health (2018) Optimal cancer care pathways (OCPs). http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/occp. Accessed June 2018 2018
Porter ME, Larsson S, Lee TH (2016) Standardizing patient outcomes measurement. N Engl J Med 374(6):504–506. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1511701
Porter ME, Lee TH (2013) The strategy that will fix health care. Harv Bus Rev 91(10):1–9
Abrahams E, Balch A, Goldsmith P, Kean M, Miller AM, Omenn G, Sonet E, Sprandio J, Tyne C, Westrich K (2017) Clinical pathways: recommendations for putting patients at the Center of Value-Based Care. Clin Cancer Res 23(16):4545–4549. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-1609
Aranda S, Whittaker K (2018) Patient out-of-pocket expenses. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 14(S7):50–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.13088
Monterosso L, Platt V, Krishnasamy M, Yates P, Bulsara C (2016) The cancer nurse coordinator service in Western Australia: perspectives of specialist cancer nurse coordinators. Aust J Adv Nurs 34(2):16
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Ruth McConigley, Angela Ives, Sandy McKiernan and Violet Platt who were involved in the planning and conceptualisation of the study; Catalina Lizama who assisted with data collection; and Rachel Singer who transcribed the interviews. The authors wish to thank the staff at the Western Australian Cancer Registry for their support with the study.
Funding
This research was funded by the Cancer Council of Western Australia and Western Australian Government Department of Health through the WA Cancer and Palliative Care Network.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
CJ and CS designed the study; JN and HH conducted data collection; JN, HH, and NSA conducted the qualitative analysis; JN, NSA, HH, CJ, and CS contributed to the analysis and interpretation of the data; NSA and JN wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Study participants provided written informed consent. The study was undertaken in accordance with relevant ethical standards and guidelines and was approved by the WA Country Health Service Ethics Committee (#2014:10) and the Department of Health WA Human Research Ethics Committee (#2014/26). The authors have full control of the primary data and are able to provide access upon request if deemed appropriate by all investigators.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Slavova-Azmanova, N., Newton, J.C., Hohnen, H. et al. How communication between cancer patients and their specialists affect the quality and cost of cancer care. Support Care Cancer 27, 4575–4585 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-04761-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-04761-w