Patient-provider communication during second opinion consultations in oncology.

OBJECTIVE: Providing a second opinion (SO) in oncology is complex, and communication during SOs remains poorly understood. This study aimed to systematically observe how patients and oncologists communicate about SO-specific topics (i.e., patient motivation, the referring oncologist, treatment transfer/back-referral), and how such communication affects patient satisfaction. METHODS: A prospective mixed-methods study of cancer patients seeking a SO (N = 69) and consulting oncologists was conducted. Before the SO, patients reported their expected place of future treatment. Following the SO, patients' and oncologists' satisfaction was assessed. All SOs were audio-recorded. Absolute and relative duration of SO-specific talk were calculated and specific events (e.g., questions/utterances) were coded (incl. valence, explicitness). RESULTS: SOs lasted 19-73 min, of which 3.7% was spent discussing motivations. Oncologists rarely explored patients' motivations. Talk about referring oncologists (12.5% of consultation) was mostly critical by patients (M = 43.0%), but positive/confirming by consulting oncologists (M = 73.5%). Although 22.2% of patients expected a treatment transfer, this topic (3.3% of consultation time) was rarely explicitly discussed. Patients who were referred back were significantly less satisfied (d = 0.85). CONCLUSION: Patient-provider communication in oncological SOs appears insufficiently aligned. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Patients and oncologists need support to explicitly and productively communicate about SO-specific topics and to better manage expectations. Recommendations are provided.

Reducing uncertainty: motivations and consequences of seeking a second opinion in oncology.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients increasingly seek second opinion (SO) consultations, but there is scarce empirical evidence to substantiate medical and psychological benefits for patients. This is the first study to examine patient- and oncologist-reported (1) motivations and expectations of patients to seek a SO, (2) the perceived medical outcome, and (3) psychological consequences of SOs over time (i.e. patients' uncertainty and anxiety). MATERIAL AND METHODS: This multi-informant longitudinal cohort study (SO-COM) included consecutive cancer patients referred for a SO (N = 70; age 28-85), as well as their referring and consulting oncologists. Outcome measures were completed at three time points: Patients and referring oncologists reported motivations and expectations before the SO (T0), patients and consulting oncologists reported the medical outcome of the SO (i.e. discrepancy between first and second opinion) immediately following the SO (T1), and patients reported their uncertainty and anxiety at T0, T1, and two months following the SO (T2). RESULTS: Cancer patients most frequently reported wanting expert advice, exhausting all options, and/or needing more information as motivations for SOs. Referring oncologists rather accurately anticipated these motivations, except most did not recognize patients' information needs. The vast majority of patients (90.0%) received a medical advice similar to the first opinion, although 65.7% had expected to receive a different opinion. Patients' uncertainty (F = 6.82, p=.002; η2 =.22), but not anxiety (F = 3.074, p=.055, η2 =.11) was significantly reduced after the SO. CONCLUSIONS: SOs can yield psychological benefits by reducing patients' uncertainty, but the added medical value remains debatable. Referring oncologists may not be fully aware of their patients' information needs. Patients should be better informed about goals and benefits of SOs to better manage their expectations. More cost-effective ways of optimally providing medically and psychologically valuable SOs need to be explored.