Observed communication between oncologists and patients: A causal model of communication competence

Table 1 Description of studies

Butow et al[11] (1995). Sydney, Australia. 142 patients. Interactions coded using the CN-LOGIT Interaction Analysis System. Patients completed the psychological adjustment to cancer scale, the functional living index: cancer, profile of mood states, and satisfaction with the consultation scale

Detmar et al[18] (2001). Amsterdam, Netherlands. 71 patients. Interactions coded using the RIAS. Patients completed health-related quality of life survey

Dimoska et al[15] (2008). Sydney, Australia. 155 patients. Interactions coded using CANCODE interaction analysis. Patients completed Spielberger State Anxiety Scale, patient satisfaction, and mental adjustment to cancer scale

Eggly et al[16] (2006). United States. 28 patients. Interactions coded for content by the Neuendorf system. Communication was evaluated using the Karmanos Accrual Assessment System

Eide et al[7] (2003). Norway. 36 patients. Interactions coded using the Roter Interaction Analysis System. Patients completed a satisfaction instrument

Ishikawa et al[2] in Patient Education & Counseling (2002). Tokyo, Japan. 128 patients from National Cancer Center Hospital. Interactions coded using the RIAS (Roter Interaction Analysis System). Patients evaluated quality of provider communication

Ishikawa et al[5] in Social Science & Medicine (2002). Uses same data as above study

Koedoot et al[19] (2004). Amsterdam, Netherlands. 140 patients. Interactions coded on the basis of information provided by the provider. Patients completed surveys involving anxiety, depression, preference for participation in decision-making style, and communicative responsiveness of the provider

Leighl et al[20] (2001). Australia. 101 patients. Interactions coded using coded content analysis system developed by the authors. Patients completed adapted form of the Cassileth Information Styles Questionnaire, patient satisfaction, and Spielberger State Anxiety Scale

Ong et al[13] (2000). Amsterdam, Netherlands. 96 patients. Interactions coded using the Roter Interaction Analysis System. Patients completed the Rotterdam Symptoms Checklist, and patient satisfaction questionnaire

Siminoff et al[10] (2000). Cleveland, OH and San Antonio, TX, United States. 50 patients. Interactions coded using the RIAS. Patients completed knowledge comprehension and satisfaction items (VAS - Visual Analog Scales), decisional conflict scale, and a satisfaction with decision scale

Street et al[3] (2006). United States. 62 patients. Interactions coded using system developed by first author

Street et al[17] (2001). United States. 9 patients. Interactions coded using system developed by first author

Street et al[21] (1995). College Station, TX, United States. 60 patients. Interactions coded using a system developed by the first author. Patients completed the perceived involvement in healthcare scale, the perceived decision control instrument, a knowledge test about cancer treatment, and an optimism scale

Table 2 Data compilation reported

Provider active
Provider facilitative	0.15 (128)
Provider patient-center	0.10 (328)	0.18 (71)
Patient involvement	0.31 (531)	0.37 (458)	0.16 (426)
Patient active	0.39 (128)	0.37 (220)	0.20 (208)	0.34 (323)
Patient satisfaction	0.14 (450)	0.18 (670)	0.23 (732)	0.23 (158)	0.16 (251)