Preferred labels and language to improve communication about lesions at low risk of progressing to cancer: qualitative interviews with patients and physicians
Objectives We explored how to improve communication about low-risk lesions including labels, language and other strategies.Design Qualitative description and thematic analysis to examine the transcripts of telephone interviews with patients who had low-risk lesions and physicians; and mapping to Com...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Open |
| Online Access: | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/15/1/e087484.full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1841551003280736256 |
|---|---|
| author | Antonio Finelli Anna R Gagliardi Frances C Wright Rachel Kupets Mavis S Lyons Clara Baker Genevieve Chaput Nicole J Look Hong |
| author_facet | Antonio Finelli Anna R Gagliardi Frances C Wright Rachel Kupets Mavis S Lyons Clara Baker Genevieve Chaput Nicole J Look Hong |
| author_sort | Antonio Finelli |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objectives We explored how to improve communication about low-risk lesions including labels, language and other strategies.Design Qualitative description and thematic analysis to examine the transcripts of telephone interviews with patients who had low-risk lesions and physicians; and mapping to Communication Accommodation Theory to interpret themes.Setting CanadaParticipants 15 patients: 6 (40%) bladder, 5 (33%) prostate and 4 (27%) cervix lesions; and 13 physicians: 7 (54%) cervix, 3 (23%) bladder and 3 (23%) prostate lesions.Main outcome measures Patient and physician views of labels, language and other strategies to improve communication about low-risk lesions.Results Patients and clinicians held discordant views about low-risk lesion label impact, preferences and rationale. All labels prompted confusion and anxiety among patients. In contrast, physicians perceived that patients understood that labels they used across all label categories (abnormal, precursor-to-cancer and cancer) implied low risk for cancer progression. Patients preferred abnormal cells, particularly when first learning of their diagnosis, and desired additional information to distinguish their diagnosis from cancer and justify treatment. In contrast, physicians favoured precursor-to-cancer and cancer labels out of habit, to match labels that patients saw elsewhere (online, charts) and to convince patients to attend follow-up and treatment visits. However, patients and physicians largely agreed on the need for 16 strategies that could improve communication about low-risk lesions including language (eg, plain language, situate low-risk lesions on cancer spectrum) and complementary communication strategies (eg, longer appointments, visual aids, connect patients with support services or groups).Conclusions The findings build on prior research by revealing that modifying labels is not the only or best strategy needed to improve communication about low-risk lesions. Ongoing research should examine how best to implement the strategies recommended by patients and physicians. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-8a1778fdcd4e40778102bab0d3bde107 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2044-6055 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open |
| spelling | doaj-art-8a1778fdcd4e40778102bab0d3bde1072025-01-09T17:50:09ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552025-01-0115110.1136/bmjopen-2024-087484Preferred labels and language to improve communication about lesions at low risk of progressing to cancer: qualitative interviews with patients and physiciansAntonio Finelli0Anna R Gagliardi1Frances C Wright2Rachel Kupets3Mavis S Lyons4Clara Baker5Genevieve Chaput6Nicole J Look Hong73 Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada1 Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada5 Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada4 Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada1 Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada1 Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada2 McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada5 Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaObjectives We explored how to improve communication about low-risk lesions including labels, language and other strategies.Design Qualitative description and thematic analysis to examine the transcripts of telephone interviews with patients who had low-risk lesions and physicians; and mapping to Communication Accommodation Theory to interpret themes.Setting CanadaParticipants 15 patients: 6 (40%) bladder, 5 (33%) prostate and 4 (27%) cervix lesions; and 13 physicians: 7 (54%) cervix, 3 (23%) bladder and 3 (23%) prostate lesions.Main outcome measures Patient and physician views of labels, language and other strategies to improve communication about low-risk lesions.Results Patients and clinicians held discordant views about low-risk lesion label impact, preferences and rationale. All labels prompted confusion and anxiety among patients. In contrast, physicians perceived that patients understood that labels they used across all label categories (abnormal, precursor-to-cancer and cancer) implied low risk for cancer progression. Patients preferred abnormal cells, particularly when first learning of their diagnosis, and desired additional information to distinguish their diagnosis from cancer and justify treatment. In contrast, physicians favoured precursor-to-cancer and cancer labels out of habit, to match labels that patients saw elsewhere (online, charts) and to convince patients to attend follow-up and treatment visits. However, patients and physicians largely agreed on the need for 16 strategies that could improve communication about low-risk lesions including language (eg, plain language, situate low-risk lesions on cancer spectrum) and complementary communication strategies (eg, longer appointments, visual aids, connect patients with support services or groups).Conclusions The findings build on prior research by revealing that modifying labels is not the only or best strategy needed to improve communication about low-risk lesions. Ongoing research should examine how best to implement the strategies recommended by patients and physicians.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/15/1/e087484.full |
| spellingShingle | Antonio Finelli Anna R Gagliardi Frances C Wright Rachel Kupets Mavis S Lyons Clara Baker Genevieve Chaput Nicole J Look Hong Preferred labels and language to improve communication about lesions at low risk of progressing to cancer: qualitative interviews with patients and physicians BMJ Open |
| title | Preferred labels and language to improve communication about lesions at low risk of progressing to cancer: qualitative interviews with patients and physicians |
| title_full | Preferred labels and language to improve communication about lesions at low risk of progressing to cancer: qualitative interviews with patients and physicians |
| title_fullStr | Preferred labels and language to improve communication about lesions at low risk of progressing to cancer: qualitative interviews with patients and physicians |
| title_full_unstemmed | Preferred labels and language to improve communication about lesions at low risk of progressing to cancer: qualitative interviews with patients and physicians |
| title_short | Preferred labels and language to improve communication about lesions at low risk of progressing to cancer: qualitative interviews with patients and physicians |
| title_sort | preferred labels and language to improve communication about lesions at low risk of progressing to cancer qualitative interviews with patients and physicians |
| url | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/15/1/e087484.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT antoniofinelli preferredlabelsandlanguagetoimprovecommunicationaboutlesionsatlowriskofprogressingtocancerqualitativeinterviewswithpatientsandphysicians AT annargagliardi preferredlabelsandlanguagetoimprovecommunicationaboutlesionsatlowriskofprogressingtocancerqualitativeinterviewswithpatientsandphysicians AT francescwright preferredlabelsandlanguagetoimprovecommunicationaboutlesionsatlowriskofprogressingtocancerqualitativeinterviewswithpatientsandphysicians AT rachelkupets preferredlabelsandlanguagetoimprovecommunicationaboutlesionsatlowriskofprogressingtocancerqualitativeinterviewswithpatientsandphysicians AT mavisslyons preferredlabelsandlanguagetoimprovecommunicationaboutlesionsatlowriskofprogressingtocancerqualitativeinterviewswithpatientsandphysicians AT clarabaker preferredlabelsandlanguagetoimprovecommunicationaboutlesionsatlowriskofprogressingtocancerqualitativeinterviewswithpatientsandphysicians AT genevievechaput preferredlabelsandlanguagetoimprovecommunicationaboutlesionsatlowriskofprogressingtocancerqualitativeinterviewswithpatientsandphysicians AT nicolejlookhong preferredlabelsandlanguagetoimprovecommunicationaboutlesionsatlowriskofprogressingtocancerqualitativeinterviewswithpatientsandphysicians |