What do you mean, a spot?: A qualitative analysis of patients' reactions to discussions with their physicians about pulmonary nodules

Chest

Volumn 143, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 672-677

  Wiener, Renda Soylemez ^a,b   Gould, Michael K ^c   Woloshin, Steven ^d,e   Schwartz, Lisa M ^d,e   Clark, Jack A ^b,f  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c KAISER PERMANENTE   (United States)

^d VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^e DARTMOUTH INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH POLICY AND CLINICAL PRACTICE   (United States)

^f BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; CANCER RISK; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DISTRESS SYNDROME; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HUMAN; LUNG CANCER; LUNG NODULE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; RADIATION EXPOSURE; REVIEW; TREATMENT PLANNING;

EID: 84874976080     PISSN: 00123692     EISSN: 19313543     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1378/chest.12-1095     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Ost D, Fein AM, Feinsilver SH. Clinical practice. The solitary pulmonary nodule. N Engl J Med. 2003; 348 (25): 2535-2542.
2. Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, et al National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365 (5): 395-409.
3. Silvestri GA. Screening for lung cancer: it works, but does it really work? Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155 (8): 537-539.
4. Wiener RS, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. Populationbased risk for complications after transthoracic needle lung biopsy of a pulmonary nodule: an analysis of discharge records. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155 (3): 137-144.
5. Wahidi MM, Govert JA, Goudar RK, McCrory DC; American College of Chest Physicians. Evidence for the treatment of patients with pulmonary nodules: when is it lung cancer?: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (2nd edition). Chest. 2007;132(suppl 3):94S-107S.
6. MacMahon H, Austin JH, Gamsu G, et al Fleischner Society. Guidelines for management of small pulmonary nodules detected on CT scans: a statement from the Fleischner Society. Radiology. 2005; 237 (2): 395-400.
7. Gould MK, Fletcher J, Iannettoni MD, et al American College of Chest Physicians. Evaluation of patients with pulmonary nodules: when is it lung cancer?: ACCP evidencebased clinical practice guidelines (2nd edition). Chest. 2007; 132(suppl 3):108S-130S.
8. Gould MK, Wiener RS. Shared decision making in patients with pulmonary nodules. In: Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Update. American College of Chest Physicians website. http://www.chestnet.org/accp/pccsu/shared-decision- makingpatients- pulmonary-nodules?page=0,3. Published 2009. Accessed April 2, 2012.
9. Paul CL, Clinton-McHarg T, Sanson-Fisher RW, Douglas H, Webb G. Are we there yet? The state of the evidence base for guidelines on breaking bad news to cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45 (17): 2960-2966.
10. Hagerty RG, Butow PN, Ellis PM, Dimitry S, Tattersall MH. Communicating prognosis in cancer care: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Oncol. 2005; 16 (7): 1005-1053.
11. Strauss AL, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA : Sage; 1990.
12. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage; 1994.
13. Probability of malignancy in SPN: Bayesian analysis. Chest X-ray website. http://www.chestx-ray.com/spn/spnprob.html. Accessed November 10, 2011.
14. Sparks L, Villagran M, Parker-Raley J, et al. A patient-centered approach to breaking bad news: communication guidelines for health care providers. J Appl Commun Res. 2007; 35 (2): 177-196.
15. Ptacek JT, Eberhardt TL. Breaking bad news. A review of the literature. JAMA. 1996; 276 (6): 496-502.
16. Ellis PM, Tattersall MH. How should doctors communicate the diagnosis of cancer to patients? Ann Med. 1999; 31 (5): 336-341.
17. Girgis A, Sanson-Fisher RW. Breaking bad news: consensus guidelines for medical practitioners. J Clin Oncol. 1995; 13 (9): 2449-2456.
18. Jett Jr. Limitations of screening for lung cancer with low-dose spiral computed tomography. Clin Cancer Res. 2005; 11 (13): 4988s - 4992s.
19. Lee CI, Tsai EB, Sigal BM, Plevritis SK, Garber AM, Rubin GD. Incidental extracardiac findings at coronary CT: clinical and economic impact. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 194 (6): 1531-1538.
20. Harthun NL, Lau CL. The incidence of pulmonary neoplasms discovered by serial computed tomography scanning after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2011; 53 (3): 738-741.
21. Cooper JD. Management of the solitary pulmonary nodule: directed resection. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002; 14 (3): 286-291.
22. Miller YE. Minimizing unintended consequences of detecting lung nodules by computed tomography. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008; 178 (9): 891-892.
23. Stinchcombe TE, Detterbeck FC, Lin L, Rivera MP, Socinski MA. Beliefs among physicians in the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2007; 2 (9): 819-826.
24. van den Bergh KA, Essink-Bot ML, Borsboom GJ, et al. Short-term health-related quality of life consequences in a lung cancer CT screening trial (NELSON). Br J Cancer. 2010; 102 (1): 27-34.
25. Byrne MM, Weissfeld J, Roberts MS. Anxiety, fear of cancer, and perceived risk of cancer following lung cancer screening. Med Decis Making. 2008; 28 (6): 917-925.
26. Taylor KL, Shelby R, Gelmann E, McGuire C. Quality of life and trial adherence among participants in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96 (14): 1083-1094.
27. Allen JD, Shelton RC, Harden E, Goldman RE. Follow-up of abnormal screening mammograms among low-income ethnically diverse women: findings from a qualitative study. Patient Educ Couns. 2008; 72 (2): 283-292.
28. Brett J, Austoker J. Women who are recalled for further investigation for breast screening: psychological consequences 3 years after recall and factors affecting re-attendance. J Public Health Med. 2001; 23 (4): 292-300.
29. Simon MA, Cofta-Woerpel L, Randhawa V, John P, Makoul G, Spring B. Using the word 'cancer' in communication about an abnormal Pap test: finding common ground with patientprovider communication. Patient Educ Couns. 2010; 81 (1): 106-112.
30. Leekha S, Thomas KG, Chaudhry R, Thomas MR. Patient preferences for and satisfaction with methods of communicating test results in a primary care practice. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2009; 35 (10): 497-501.
31. Karliner LS, Patricia Kaplan C, Juarbe T, Pasick R, Pérez-Stable EJ. Poor patient comprehension of abnormal mammography results. J Gen Intern Med. 2005; 20 (5): 432- 437.
32. De Morgan S, Redman S, White KJ, Cakir B, Boyages J. "Well, have I got cancer or haven't I?" The psycho-social issues for women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ. Health Expect. 2002; 5 (4): 310-318.
33. Marcus EN, Drummond D, Dietz N. Urban women's preferences for learning of their mammogram result: a qualitative study. J Cancer Educ. 2012 ;27(1):156-164.
34. Joosten EA, DeFuentes-Merillas L, de Weert GH, Sensky T, van der Staak CP, de Jong CA. Systematic review of the effects of shared decision-making on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health status. Psychother Psychosom. 2008; 77 (4): 219-226.
35. Pickles T, Ruether JD, Weir L, Carlson L, Jakulj F; SCRN Communication Team. Psychosocial barriers to active surveillance for the management of early prostate cancer and a strat egy for increased acceptance. BJU Int. 2007; 100 (3): 544-551.
36. Hewson MG, Kindy PJ, Van Kirk J, Gennis VA, Day RP. Strategies for managing uncertainty and complexity. J Gen Intern Med. 1996; 11 (8): 481-485.
37. Montgomery M. Uncertainty during breast diagnostic evaluation: state of the science. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2010; 37 (1): 77-83.
38. Ando N, Iwamitsu Y, Kuranami M, et al. Psychological characteristics and subjective symptoms as determinants of psychological distress in patients prior to breast cancer diagnosis. Support Care Cancer. 2009; 17 (11): 1361-1370.
39. Kola S, Walsh JC. Determinants of pre-procedural state anxiety and negative affect in first-time colposcopy patients: implications for intervention. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2012; 21 (4): 469-476.
40. Lelorain S, Bredart A, Dolbeault S, et al. A systematic review of the associations between empathy measures and patient outcomes in cancer care. Psychooncology. In press. doi:10.1002/pon.2115.
41. Winzelberg AJ, Classen C, Alpers GW, et al. Evaluation of an internet support group for women with primary breast cancer. Cancer. 2003; 97 (5): 1164-1173.
42. Iezzoni LI, Rao SR, DesRoches CM, Vogeli C, Campbell EG. Survey shows that at least some physicians are not always open or honest with patients. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012; 31 (2): 383-391.
43. Goh AC, Kowalkowski MA, Bailey DE Jr, et al. Perception of cancer and inconsistency in medical information are associated with decisional conflict: a pilot study of men with prostate cancer who undergo active surveillance. BJU Int. 2011; 110(2b):E50-E56.
44. Cooper LA, Roter DL, Johnson RL, Ford DE, Steinwachs DM, Powe NR. Patient-centered communication, ratings of care, and concordance of patient and physician race. Ann Intern Med. 2003; 139 (11): 907-915.