By the same authors

From the same journal

How to communicate with patients about future illness progression and end of life: a systematic review

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Standard

How to communicate with patients about future illness progression and end of life: a systematic review. / Parry, Ruth; Land, Victoria Christine; Seymour, Jane.

In: BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, Vol. 4, 24.10.2014, p. 331-341.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Harvard

Parry, R, Land, VC & Seymour, J 2014, 'How to communicate with patients about future illness progression and end of life: a systematic review', BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, vol. 4, pp. 331-341. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2014-000649

APA

Parry, R., Land, V. C., & Seymour, J. (2014). How to communicate with patients about future illness progression and end of life: a systematic review. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, 4, 331-341. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2014-000649

Vancouver

Parry R, Land VC, Seymour J. How to communicate with patients about future illness progression and end of life: a systematic review. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care. 2014 Oct 24;4:331-341. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2014-000649

Author

Parry, Ruth ; Land, Victoria Christine ; Seymour, Jane. / How to communicate with patients about future illness progression and end of life: a systematic review. In: BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care. 2014 ; Vol. 4. pp. 331-341.

Bibtex - Download

@article{f4e9ac8468fa4dd6a516b0ea282c2704,
title = "How to communicate with patients about future illness progression and end of life: a systematic review",
abstract = "Background Conversation and discourse analytic research has yielded important evidence about skills needed for effective, sensitive communication with patients about illness progression and end of life.Objectives To: ▸ Locate and synthesise observational evidence about how people communicate about sensitive future matters;▸ Inform practice and policy on how to provide opportunities for talk about these matters;▸ Identify evidence gaps.Design Systematic review of conversation/discourse analytic studies of recorded interactions in English, using a bespoke appraisal approach and aggregative synthesis.Results 19 publications met the inclusion criteria. We summarised findings in terms of eight practices: {\textquoteleft}fishing questions{\textquoteright}—open questions seeking patients{\textquoteright} perspectives (5/19); indirect references to difficult topics (6/19); linking to what a patient has already said—or noticeably not said (7/19); hypothetical questions (12/19); framing difficult matters as universal or general (4/19); conveying sensitivity via means other than words, for example, hesitancy, touch (4/19); encouraging further talk using means other than words, for example, long silences (2/19); and steering talk from difficult/negative to more optimistic aspects (3/19).Conclusions Practices vary in how strongly they encourage patients to engage in talk about matters such as illness progression and dying. Fishing questions and indirect talk make it particularly easy to avoid engaging—this may be appropriate in some circumstances. Hypothetical questions are more effective in encouraging on-topic talk, as is linking questions to patients{\textquoteright} cues. Shifting towards more {\textquoteleft}optimistic{\textquoteright} aspects helps maintain hope but closes off further talk about difficulties: practitioners may want to delay doing so. There are substantial gaps in evidence.",
author = "Ruth Parry and Land, {Victoria Christine} and Jane Seymour",
year = "2014",
month = oct,
day = "24",
doi = "10.1136/bmjspcare-2014-000649",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
pages = "331--341",
journal = "BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care",
issn = "2045-435X",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - How to communicate with patients about future illness progression and end of life: a systematic review

AU - Parry, Ruth

AU - Land, Victoria Christine

AU - Seymour, Jane

PY - 2014/10/24

Y1 - 2014/10/24

N2 - Background Conversation and discourse analytic research has yielded important evidence about skills needed for effective, sensitive communication with patients about illness progression and end of life.Objectives To: ▸ Locate and synthesise observational evidence about how people communicate about sensitive future matters;▸ Inform practice and policy on how to provide opportunities for talk about these matters;▸ Identify evidence gaps.Design Systematic review of conversation/discourse analytic studies of recorded interactions in English, using a bespoke appraisal approach and aggregative synthesis.Results 19 publications met the inclusion criteria. We summarised findings in terms of eight practices: ‘fishing questions’—open questions seeking patients’ perspectives (5/19); indirect references to difficult topics (6/19); linking to what a patient has already said—or noticeably not said (7/19); hypothetical questions (12/19); framing difficult matters as universal or general (4/19); conveying sensitivity via means other than words, for example, hesitancy, touch (4/19); encouraging further talk using means other than words, for example, long silences (2/19); and steering talk from difficult/negative to more optimistic aspects (3/19).Conclusions Practices vary in how strongly they encourage patients to engage in talk about matters such as illness progression and dying. Fishing questions and indirect talk make it particularly easy to avoid engaging—this may be appropriate in some circumstances. Hypothetical questions are more effective in encouraging on-topic talk, as is linking questions to patients’ cues. Shifting towards more ‘optimistic’ aspects helps maintain hope but closes off further talk about difficulties: practitioners may want to delay doing so. There are substantial gaps in evidence.

AB - Background Conversation and discourse analytic research has yielded important evidence about skills needed for effective, sensitive communication with patients about illness progression and end of life.Objectives To: ▸ Locate and synthesise observational evidence about how people communicate about sensitive future matters;▸ Inform practice and policy on how to provide opportunities for talk about these matters;▸ Identify evidence gaps.Design Systematic review of conversation/discourse analytic studies of recorded interactions in English, using a bespoke appraisal approach and aggregative synthesis.Results 19 publications met the inclusion criteria. We summarised findings in terms of eight practices: ‘fishing questions’—open questions seeking patients’ perspectives (5/19); indirect references to difficult topics (6/19); linking to what a patient has already said—or noticeably not said (7/19); hypothetical questions (12/19); framing difficult matters as universal or general (4/19); conveying sensitivity via means other than words, for example, hesitancy, touch (4/19); encouraging further talk using means other than words, for example, long silences (2/19); and steering talk from difficult/negative to more optimistic aspects (3/19).Conclusions Practices vary in how strongly they encourage patients to engage in talk about matters such as illness progression and dying. Fishing questions and indirect talk make it particularly easy to avoid engaging—this may be appropriate in some circumstances. Hypothetical questions are more effective in encouraging on-topic talk, as is linking questions to patients’ cues. Shifting towards more ‘optimistic’ aspects helps maintain hope but closes off further talk about difficulties: practitioners may want to delay doing so. There are substantial gaps in evidence.

U2 - 10.1136/bmjspcare-2014-000649

DO - 10.1136/bmjspcare-2014-000649

M3 - Review article

VL - 4

SP - 331

EP - 341

JO - BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care

JF - BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care

SN - 2045-435X

ER -