Advertisement

Communicating the Gynecologic Brachytherapy Experience (CoGBE): Clinician perceived benefits of a graphic narrative discussion guide

Published:January 19, 2023DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2022.12.006

      ABSTRACT

      PURPOSE

      Many current radiotherapy patient education materials are not patient-centered. An interprofessional team developed Communicating the Gynecologic Brachytherapy Experience (CoGBE), a graphic narrative discussion guide for cylinder, intracavitary, and interstitial high-dose-rate (HDR) gynecologic brachytherapy. This study assesses perceived clinical benefits, usability, and anxiety-reduction of CoGBE.

      METHODS AND MATERIALS

      An electronic survey was sent to members of the American Brachytherapy Society. Participants were assigned to assess one of the three modality-specific CoGBE versions using a modified Systems Usability Scale (SUS), modified state-trait anxiety index (mSTAI), and Likert-type questions. Free response data was analyzed using modified grounded theory.

      RESULTS

      Median modified SUS score was 76.3 (interquartile range [IQR], 71.3−82.5) and there were no significant differences between guide types. Median mSTAI was 40 (IQR, 40−43.3) for all guides collectively. The cylinder guide had a significantly higher median mSTAI than the intracavitary and interstitial guides (41.6 vs. 40.0 and 40.0; p = 0.04) suggesting the cylinder guide may have less impact on reducing anxiety. Most respondents reported that CoGBE was helpful (72%), would improve patient understanding (77%) and consultation memorability (82%), and was at least moderately likely to be incorporated into their practice (80%). Qualitative analysis themes included personalization and relatability (positive); generalizability (negative); illustrations (both).

      CONCLUSIONS

      Clinicians rate CoGBE as usable with potential to reduce patient anxiety, especially with more invasive treatment modalities including intracavitary or interstitial high-dose-rate. CoGBE has the potential to improve patient-clinician communication for a wider range of patients due to its accessible, adaptable, and patient-centered design.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Brachytherapy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Matsuyama RK
        • Lyckholm LJ
        • Molisani A
        • Moghanaki D.
        The value of an educational video before consultation with a radiation oncologist.
        J Cancer Educ. 2013; 28: 306-313https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-013-0473-1
        • Humphrey P
        • Bennett C
        • Cramp F.
        The experiences of women receiving brachytherapy for cervical cancer: A systematic literature review.
        Radiography (Lond). 2018; 24: 396-403https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2018.06.002
        • Kirchheiner K
        • Czajka-Pepl A
        • Ponocny-Seliger E
        • et al.
        Posttraumatic stress disorder after high-dose-rate brachytherapy for cervical cancer with 2 fractions in 1 application under spinal/epidural anesthesia: incidence and risk factors.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014; 89: 260-267https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.02.018
        • Paulsson A
        • Braunstein SE.
        Patient communication prior to initial consultation for palliative radiotherapy.
        JCO. 2016; 34 (30–): 30https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2016.34.26_suppl.30
        • Long D
        • Friedrich-Nel HS
        • Joubert G.
        Patients’ informational needs while undergoing brachytherapy for cervical cancer.
        Int J Qual Health Care. 2016; 28: 200-208https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzv119
        • Rainey LC.
        Effects of preparatory patient education for radiation oncology patients.
        Cancer. 1985; 56: 1056-1061https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19850901)56
        • Canil T
        • Cashell A
        • Papadakos J
        • Abdelmutti N
        • Friedman AJ.
        Evaluation of the effects of pre-treatment education on self-efficacy and anxiety in patients receiving radiation therapy: a pilot study.
        J Med Imaging and Radiation Sci. 2012; 43: 221-227https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2012.05.002
        • Wynia MK
        • Osborn CY.
        Health literacy and communication quality in health care organizations.
        J Health Commun. 2010; 15: 102-115https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2010.499981
        • Nielsen-Bohlman L
        • Panzer AM
        • Kindig DA
        Institute of Medicine (U.S.), Committee on Health Literacy.
        Health Literacy, Washington, D.C.2004
        • Berkman ND
        • Sheridan SL
        • Donahue KE
        • Halpern DJ
        • Crotty K.
        Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review.
        Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155: 97-107https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-2-201107190-00005
        • Yee LM
        • Silver R
        • Haas DM
        • et al.
        Association of health literacy among nulliparous individuals and maternal and neonatal outcomes.
        JAMA Network Open. 2021; 4e2122576https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.22576
        • Stewart MA.
        Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review.
        CMAJ. 1995; 152: 1423-1433
        • Arnold J
        • Goodacre S
        • Bath P
        • Price J.
        Information sheets for patients with acute chest pain: randomised controlled trial.
        BMJ. 2009; 338: 541https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b541
      1. Radiology (ACR) RS of NA (RSNA) and AC of. brachytherapy. Radiologyinfo.org. Available at https://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info/brachy. Accessed November 16, 2022.

      2. Treatment Types - Gynecologic Cancers - RTAnswers.org. RTAnswers. Available at https://rtanswers.org/Cancer-Types/Gynecologic-Cancers/Treatment-Types. Accessed November 16, 2022.

      3. What is Brachytherapy? American Brachytherapy Society, Reston, VA. Available at https://www.americanbrachytherapy.org/resources/for-patients/what-is-brachytherapy/. Accessed November 16, 2022.

      4. Cervical Cancer Radiation Therapy Cervical cancer radiation treatment. Available at https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cervical-cancer/treating/radiation.html. Accessed November 16, 2022.

      5. Radiation Therapy for Endometrial Cancer. Available at https://www.cancer.org/cancer/endometrial-cancer/treating/radiation.html. Accessed November 16, 2022.

      6. Brachytherapy for cancer - NCI. Available at https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/types/radiation-therapy/brachytherapy. Accessed November 16, 2022.

      7. Brachytherapy for Cervix Cancer Treatment.
        Targeting Cancer. 2022; (Available at) (Accessed November 16)
      8. Patient Education - Brochures - American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) - American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO). ASTRO. Available at https://www.astro.org/ Patient-Care-and-Research/Provider-Resources/Patient-Brochures. Accessed November 16, 2022.

        • Byun J
        • Golden DW.
        Readability of patient education materials from professional societies in radiation oncology: are we meeting the national standard?.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015; 91: 1108-1109https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.12.035
        • Rooney MK
        • Sachdev S
        • Byun J
        • Jagsi R
        • Golden DW.
        Readability of patient education materials in radiation oncology-are we improving?.
        Pract Radiat Oncol. 2019; 9: 435-440https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2019.06.005
        • Samuel D
        • Vilardo N
        • Isani SS
        • Kuo DYS
        • Gressel GM.
        Readability assessment of online gynecologic oncology patient education materials from major governmental, non-profit and pharmaceutical organizations.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2019; 154: 616-621https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.06.026
        • Weiss BD
        Health Literacy: A Manual for Clinicians.
        Chicago, IL: American Medical Association Foundation. 2003: 31-35
      9. Clear & Simple. National Institutes of Health (NIH). Available at https://www.nih.gov/institutes-nih/nih-office-director/office-communications-public-liaison/clear-communication/clear-simple. Accessed August 21, 2020.

      10. Arya R, Ichikawa T, Callender B, et al. Communicating the External Beam Radiation Experience (CEBRE): perceived benefits of a graphic narrative patient education tool. Pract Radiat Oncol 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2019.09.001.

        • Perni S
        • Rooney MK
        • Horowitz DP
        • et al.
        Assessment of use, specificity, and readability of written clinical informed consent forms for patients with cancer undergoing radiotherapy.
        JAMA Oncol. 2019; e190260https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0260
        • Shoemaker SJ
        • Wolf MS
        • Brach C.
        Development of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT): a new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information.
        Patient Educ Couns. 2014; 96: 395-403https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2014.05.027
        • Harris PA
        • Taylor R
        • Thielke R
        • Payne J
        • Gonzalez N
        • Conde JG.
        Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.
        J Biomed Inform. 2009; 42: 377-381https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
        • Harris PA
        • Taylor R
        • Minor BL
        • et al.
        The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners.
        J Biomed Inform. 2019; 95103208https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208
        • Brooke J.
        SUS: a “quick and dirty”usability scale.
        in: Jordan P.W. Thomas B. Weerdmeester B.A. McClelland I.L. Usability Evaluation In Industry. CRC Press, Earley, United Kingdom1996: 189-194
        • Marteau TM
        • Bekker H.
        The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI).
        Br J Clin Psychol. 1992; 31: 301-306https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1992.tb00997.x
        • Watling CJ
        • Lingard L.
        Grounded theory in medical education research: AMEE Guide No. 70.
        Med Teach. 2012; 34: 850-861https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.704439
        • Houts PS
        • Bachrach R
        • Witmer JT
        • Tringali CA
        • Bucher JA
        • Localio RA.
        Using pictographs to enhance recall of spoken medical instructions.
        Patient Educ Couns. 1998; 35: 83-88https://doi.org/10.1016/s0738-3991(98)00065-2
        • Houts PS
        • Witmer JT
        • Egeth HE
        • Loscalzo MJ
        • Zabora JR.
        Using pictographs to enhance recall of spoken medical instructions II.
        Patient Educ Couns. 2001; 43: 231-242https://doi.org/10.1016/s0738-3991(00)00171-3
        • Houts PS
        • Doak CC
        • Doak LG
        • Loscalzo MJ.
        The role of pictures in improving health communication: a review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence.
        Patient Educ Couns. 2006; 61: 173-190https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.05.004
        • DeTora L
        • Cressman J
        Graphic Embodiments.
        (editors) Leuven University Press, Leuven2021
        • Williams I.
        Autography as auto-therapy: psychic pain and the graphic memoir.
        J Med Humanit. 2011; 32: 353-366https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-011-9158-0
        • Sanders JC
        • Showalter TN
        • Ouhib Z
        • et al.
        Safety practices and opportunities for improvement in brachytherapy: a patient safety practices survey of the American Brachytherapy Society membership.
        Brachytherapy. 2020; 19: 762-766https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2020.08.014
        • Martell K
        • Doll C
        • Barnes EA
        • Phan T
        • Leung E
        • Taggar A.
        Radiotherapy practices in postoperative endometrial cancer: a survey of the ABS membership.
        Brachytherapy. 2019; 18: 741-746https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2019.07.004
        • Brand A
        • Crayen C
        • Hamann A
        • et al.
        Informed Consent before coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention from the patient's perspective: a picture is worth a thousand words.
        Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2022; 41101076https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2022.101076
        • Durand M-A
        • Yen RW
        • O'Malley AJ
        • et al.
        What matters most: randomized controlled trial of breast cancer surgery conversation aids across socioeconomic strata.
        Cancer. 2021; 127: 422-436https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.33248
        • Alkureishi MA
        • Johnson T
        • Nichols J
        • et al.
        Impact of an educational comic to enhance patient-physician-electronic health record engagement: prospective observational study.
        JMIR Hum Factors. 2021; 8: e25054https://doi.org/10.2196/25054
        • Mahantshetty U
        • Lavanya G
        • Grover S
        • Akinfenwa CA
        • Carvalho H
        • Incidence Amornwichet N.
        Treatment and outcomes of cervical cancer in low- and middle-income countries.
        Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2021; 33: e363-e371https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2021.07.001