Loïs F van de Water|Jessy Joy van Kleef|Willemieke P.M. Dijksterhuis|Inge Henselmans|Héctor G. van den Boorn|N. M. Vaarzon Morel|Kirsten Schut|Joost G. Daams|Ellen M. A. Smets|H.W.M. van Laarhoven
Communicating treatment risks and benefits to cancer patients: a systematic review of communication methods
Amsterdam University Medical Centers|University of Amsterdam|Amsterdam University Medical Centers|University of Amsterdam|Amsterdam University Medical Centers|University of Amsterdam|Amsterdam University Medical Centers|University of Amsterdam|Amsterdam University Medical Centers|University of Amsterdam|Amsterdam University Medical Centers|University of Amsterdam|Amsterdam University Medical Centers|University of Amsterdam|Amsterdam University Medical Centers|University of Amsterdam|Amsterdam University Medical Centers|University of Amsterdam|Amsterdam University Medical Centers|University of Amsterdam
abstract purpose cancer patients increasingly involved decisionmaking processes hence clinicians need inform patients risks benefits different treatment options order patients make well informed decisions aim review determine effects methods communicating prognostic information 1 disease progression survival progression recurrence remission 2 side effects complications 3 healthrelated quality life hrql cognitive affective behavioral outcomes cancer patients methods literature search performed select articles published november 2019 examined verbal andor visual risk communication interventions oncological clinical setting results search yielded 14875 studies 28 studies ultimately included disease progression information found framing affects treatment choice furthermore limiting amount progression information graphical display could benefit patients understanding risks benefits prognostic information side effects complications precise defined risk information better understood information presented words displaying hrql data consensus found graph type use conclusion great heterogeneity results methodology compared communication formats precluded us drawing conclusions practical implications clinicians consider effects different types framing might patient rely exclusively words describe risks rather include least form numbers visualization