Cargando…

Quality of breaking bad news to patients diagnosed with neoplasia of the uterine cervix

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the quality of receiving bad news (BN) for women diagnosed with cervical neoplasia. We evaluated adherence to the SPIKES protocol in three cohorts of women with different stages of the disease and treatment modalities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included women with cer...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: von Blanckenburg, Pia, Köhler, Christhardt, Petzel, Anja, Jülicher, Anne, Schneider, Viola, Schneider, Achim
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10657321/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37792062
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00432-023-05442-2
_version_ 1785137191470497792
author von Blanckenburg, Pia
Köhler, Christhardt
Petzel, Anja
Jülicher, Anne
Schneider, Viola
Schneider, Achim
author_facet von Blanckenburg, Pia
Köhler, Christhardt
Petzel, Anja
Jülicher, Anne
Schneider, Viola
Schneider, Achim
author_sort von Blanckenburg, Pia
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the quality of receiving bad news (BN) for women diagnosed with cervical neoplasia. We evaluated adherence to the SPIKES protocol in three cohorts of women with different stages of the disease and treatment modalities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included women with cervical cancer who underwent radical vaginal trachelectomy (RVT group, n = 110), radical hysterectomy or chemo-radiation (HE/RCT group, n = 101), and women with CIN 3 treated by loop excision (CIN group, n = 108). We asked the participants about how they received the bad news delivery in reality and how they would envision an ideal communication process based on the main items of the SPIKES protocol. The participants filled out a questionnaire with 38 items of the Marburg Breaking Bad News (MABBAN) Scale representing the six SPIKES subscales. RESULTS: Only 72% of all patients reported being satisfied with their BBN experience. The following factors were considered important by 90% of the patients: an undisturbed atmosphere, taking enough time, coherent explanation of the disease, and the possibility to ask questions. However, the reality of their experiences fell significantly short of their expectations. Asking about the patient’s knowledge of the disease, addressing their concerns, allowing them to show emotions, providing clarity about the change in quality of life, informing them about alternative therapies, and involving them in further planning were also significantly lacking in the actual BBN encounters compared to the patients’ preferences. The experience of RVT patients was more negative compared to the HE/RCT patients (p = 0.036). The CIN patients had an overall satisfactory impression (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The process of breaking bad news in German women diagnosed with cervical neoplasia requires substantial improvement. The SPIKES protocol can be used as a guideline for enhancement but should be supplemented by incorporating a second consultation as the norm rather than the exception. Continuous monitoring and improvement of the quality of BBN is recommended for all oncologic institutions, utilizing the MABBAN questionnaire as a valuable tool. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00432-023-05442-2.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10657321
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106573212023-10-04 Quality of breaking bad news to patients diagnosed with neoplasia of the uterine cervix von Blanckenburg, Pia Köhler, Christhardt Petzel, Anja Jülicher, Anne Schneider, Viola Schneider, Achim J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Research OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the quality of receiving bad news (BN) for women diagnosed with cervical neoplasia. We evaluated adherence to the SPIKES protocol in three cohorts of women with different stages of the disease and treatment modalities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included women with cervical cancer who underwent radical vaginal trachelectomy (RVT group, n = 110), radical hysterectomy or chemo-radiation (HE/RCT group, n = 101), and women with CIN 3 treated by loop excision (CIN group, n = 108). We asked the participants about how they received the bad news delivery in reality and how they would envision an ideal communication process based on the main items of the SPIKES protocol. The participants filled out a questionnaire with 38 items of the Marburg Breaking Bad News (MABBAN) Scale representing the six SPIKES subscales. RESULTS: Only 72% of all patients reported being satisfied with their BBN experience. The following factors were considered important by 90% of the patients: an undisturbed atmosphere, taking enough time, coherent explanation of the disease, and the possibility to ask questions. However, the reality of their experiences fell significantly short of their expectations. Asking about the patient’s knowledge of the disease, addressing their concerns, allowing them to show emotions, providing clarity about the change in quality of life, informing them about alternative therapies, and involving them in further planning were also significantly lacking in the actual BBN encounters compared to the patients’ preferences. The experience of RVT patients was more negative compared to the HE/RCT patients (p = 0.036). The CIN patients had an overall satisfactory impression (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The process of breaking bad news in German women diagnosed with cervical neoplasia requires substantial improvement. The SPIKES protocol can be used as a guideline for enhancement but should be supplemented by incorporating a second consultation as the norm rather than the exception. Continuous monitoring and improvement of the quality of BBN is recommended for all oncologic institutions, utilizing the MABBAN questionnaire as a valuable tool. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00432-023-05442-2. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023-10-04 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10657321/ /pubmed/37792062 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00432-023-05442-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research
von Blanckenburg, Pia
Köhler, Christhardt
Petzel, Anja
Jülicher, Anne
Schneider, Viola
Schneider, Achim
Quality of breaking bad news to patients diagnosed with neoplasia of the uterine cervix
title Quality of breaking bad news to patients diagnosed with neoplasia of the uterine cervix
title_full Quality of breaking bad news to patients diagnosed with neoplasia of the uterine cervix
title_fullStr Quality of breaking bad news to patients diagnosed with neoplasia of the uterine cervix
title_full_unstemmed Quality of breaking bad news to patients diagnosed with neoplasia of the uterine cervix
title_short Quality of breaking bad news to patients diagnosed with neoplasia of the uterine cervix
title_sort quality of breaking bad news to patients diagnosed with neoplasia of the uterine cervix
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10657321/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37792062
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00432-023-05442-2
work_keys_str_mv AT vonblanckenburgpia qualityofbreakingbadnewstopatientsdiagnosedwithneoplasiaoftheuterinecervix
AT kohlerchristhardt qualityofbreakingbadnewstopatientsdiagnosedwithneoplasiaoftheuterinecervix
AT petzelanja qualityofbreakingbadnewstopatientsdiagnosedwithneoplasiaoftheuterinecervix
AT julicheranne qualityofbreakingbadnewstopatientsdiagnosedwithneoplasiaoftheuterinecervix
AT schneiderviola qualityofbreakingbadnewstopatientsdiagnosedwithneoplasiaoftheuterinecervix
AT schneiderachim qualityofbreakingbadnewstopatientsdiagnosedwithneoplasiaoftheuterinecervix