SYSTEMATIC REVIEW


Patient-Physician Communication in Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndrome



Emanuela Morelli1, *, Olga Mulas1, Giovanni Caocci1
1 Hematology and CTMO, Businco Hospital, ARNAS “G. Brotzu”, Cagliari, Italy


Article Metrics

CrossRef Citations:
3
Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 605
Abstract HTML Views: 251
PDF Downloads: 285
Total Views/Downloads: 1141
Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 404
Abstract HTML Views: 152
PDF Downloads: 214
Total Views/Downloads: 770



Creative Commons License
© 2021 Al-Morelli et al.

open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

* Address correspondence to this author at the Hematology and CTMO, Businco Hospital, ARNAS “G. Brotzu”, Cagliari, Italy;
E-mail: emanuela.morelli.27@gmail.com


Abstract

Introduction:

An effective communication is an integral part of the patient-physician relationship. Lack of a healthy patient-physician relationship leads to a lower level of patient satisfaction, scarce understanding of interventions and poor adherence to treatment regimes. Patients need to be involved in the therapeutic process and the assessment of risks and perspectives of the illness in order to better evaluate their options. Physicians, in turn, must convey and communicate information clearly in order to avoid misunderstandings and consequently poor medical care. The patient-physician relationship in cancer care is extremely delicate due to the complexity of the disease. In cancer diagnosis, the physician must adopt a communicative approach that considers the psychosocial factors, needs and patient’s preferences for information,which in turn all contribute to affect clinical outcomes.

Search Strategy and Methods :

This review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. We included studies on the importance of physician-patient communication in Acute Myeloid Leukaemia and Myelodysplastic Syndrome care. We searched PubMed, Web of Sciences, Scopus, Google scholar for studies published from December 1 st , 2020 up to March 1 st , 2021. Using MeSH headings, we search for the terms “Physician and patient communication AND Acute Myeloid leukemia” or “Myelodysplastic syndrome” or “Doctor” or “Clinician”, as well as variations thereof .

Purpose of the Review :

This review examines the progress in communication research between patient and physician and focuses on the impact of communication styles on patient-physician relationshipin hematologic cancers, including Acute Myeloid Leukaemia and Myelodysplastic Syndromes.

Keywords: Physician, Patient, Communication, Acute myeloid leukemia, Myelodysplastic syndrome, Quality of life.



1. INTRODUCTION

Effective physician-patient communication is of central importance in the field of care and essential to improve clinical encounters in an everyday medical context. In the past, the role of the physician was authoritative and paternalistic. Recently however, medical practice has changed to a more participative relationship between patient and physician with the purpose of creating an alliance that meets the needs of both [1, 2].What defines a patient? The patient is not just an assemblage of organs, symptoms, and emotions but a human being who seeks comprehension and trust. What makes a good physician? A good physician possesses not only an extensive knowledge of symptoms of illness, diagnosis and treatments but also the ability to convey information clearly with good communicative skills to avoid misunderstanding and consequently poor compliance [3]. Two forms of communication have been distinguished in daily medical practice: verbal and non-verbal that contain a message perceived either empathic or detached by the patients [4]. Kaplan et al in 1996 administrated a self-reported questionnaire to patients in order to characterize physician's care styles. They demonstrated that a physician's propensity to involve patients in diagnostic and treatment decisions is influenced by their medical background, training and autonomy, suggesting that the physician’s professional and medical satisfaction can influence their communication style [5]. As the medical model has evolved from paternalism to individualism, exchange of information became a dominant communication model, for example shared decision making and the patient-centered communication model. The “shared decision-making model” (SDM), a method where clinicians and patients make decisions together, has positive effects on patient and physician’s satisfaction and is associated with increased knowledge, less decisional hesitancy, and reduced anxiety regarding treatment [6, 7]. Patients need to be involved in the therapeutic process and the assessment of risks and perspectives of the illness in order to better evaluate their options [2]. In particular, the efficacy of SDM practice seems to be more manifest in chronic conditions when patients need routine follow-ups. More importantly, SDM was reported to be associated with improved health outcomes [8].

Patient-centered practices such as the SDM model impact patients' health especially through consens us between the patient and the physician based on shared goals and purposes [8, 9]. As described by Rathert C. et al., a collaborative relationship is more likely to lead to excellent clinical outcomes [10]. To conduct an effective patient-centered practice, the physician should develop a compassionate communication style in order to explore the emotional response of the patient [11, 12]. For the physician to understand the patient's perspective requires exploring the patient's feelings, and expectations [13]. Among the non-medical factors associated with increased psychological distress, limited health literacy (LHL) must be taken into account by the physician, as it may limit physician-patient communication [14]. Health literacy (HL) is defined as the skill of individuals to obtain and understand basic health information and thus make health decisions. A limited comprehension of health information would reduce the possibility of the patient to consider their treatment options. The capacity of patients to interpret and understand medical documentation depends ontheir education, culture, and language level [15], suggesting that cultural diversity of patients has to be addressed when establishing a patient-physician relationship [16].

The physician before diagnosis should understand the patient's prior medical knowledge and preferences [13]. However, a variety of studies have shown that physicians and patients have different views regarding what might be an efficient communication and what the patients expect or desire to know about their disease condition [12, 17]. Physicians’ perceptions are frequently inconsistent with patients’ stated preferences [18]. Perron NJ et al., explored patients expectations in multicultural contexts and physicians were found to be generally poor at identifying patients’ preferences, making cross-cultural communication even more complex [19]. Although, it was reported that about 70% of the patients prefer a type of patient-centered communication, cultural gaps can constitute a limitation [13] (Table 1).

2. IMPACT OF PATIENT-CLINICIAN COMMUNICATION IN CANCER CARE

Over the past years, prioritizing cancer patients' needs has become an important goal. Cancer patients more frequently seek for further information about their diagnosis and treatments, especially the younger ones [20]. Amongst cancer patients, LHL has been associated with poor health quality of life (HQoL), increased anxiety and more mental distress [16, 21]. Therefore, it is the goal of the physician, to promote an inter-personal connection; to share medical information and to put the patients in the position of being able of choosing amongst available treatments [22]. Especially for the advanced cancer population, it is challenging to make a prognosis to predict the patient’s expectation for care [23]. In general, older patients are less likely to want prognosis information probably due to the complexity of the disease or a status of anxiety [24]. Most physicians experience difficulty communicating prognosis information to patients [25]. Yet, patients rank physician communication manner as highly important, and patients prefer sensitivity and honesty from their physicians [25-28]. Physicians, in contrast rank patient-physician communication as the least important in the relationship [17]. Nevertheless, other studies have demonstrated that competence aside, addressing patients’ emotional needs does impact on patient satisfaction more [29]. “The patient will never care how much you know, until they know how much you care” [30]. The patient-physician relationship in cancer care is extremely delicate and sensitive due to the emotional factors associated with the disease. A recent review, based on the experiences of patients, families and experts, setup a guideline that represents high level recommendations with the purpose of optimizing patient-physician relationship and well-being in cancer care. The results of the analysis identified a core of central communication skills such as: to discuss end-of-life care, meet the needs of the patient and facilitate the communication with the family, discuss cost of care, consider cultural gaps etc [31]. Here, we examined patient-physician relationships and communication styles in light of research evidence focusing on hematologic cancers, including Acute Myeloid Leukaemia and Myelodysplastic Syndromes (Fig. 1).

3. PATIENT-PHYSICIAN COMMUNICATION IN ACUTE MYELOID LEUKAEMIA

Acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) is unusual compared with other cancer forms, in its prognostic variability, treatment intensity choices and chances forcures, even if new drugs have recently emerged [32, 33]. Specifically, AML is a malignant disease of uncontrolled accumulation of undifferentiated myeloid precursor cells, most commonly in the bone marrow [BM] that leads to BM failure and death. Without treatment, AML progresses rapidly, in fact survival is measured in days to weeks. A study based on the Global Burden of Disease 2017 database revealed that the incidence of AML gradually increased in most countries from 1990 to 2017 and, in line with other studies, found that males and elder persons have a higher risk of developing AML [34, 35]. In fact, the risk of developing AML increases with age, with over 70% of new AML cases being diagnosed in adults of> 55 years, with a 5-years survival rate of 3-8% in patients over 60 years [20, 32, 36, 37].

Walsh E.H. et al, in 2019 conducted research that explored the degree of concordance between the patient experience of symptoms as reported respectively by the AML patients themselves or by the physicians. Furthermore, they examined how the degree of discordance impacted on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of the patient. Agreement on the individual symptoms varied considerably. The results described the lowest level of agreement for appetite loss, reported by 74% of AML patients compared with only 11% of physicians, and the highest agreement for fever with 12% of AML patient self-reporting these symptoms and 7% reported by the physicians [37]. This study has demonstrated not only a substantial disagreement between patients and physician-reported symptoms, but also that the level of discordance negatively influences the HRQoL of AML patients.

Table 1. Summary of good physician communicative skills.
Good Interpersonal and Effective Communicative Skills
=> Demonstrate caring and respectful behaviors
=> Patients need is to be involved in the therapeutic process.
=> Take the time when needed to counsel and listen to patients.
=> Provide medical information using effective instructions to avoid misunderstanding.
=> Check accuracy of patient’s understanding.
=> Help the patient to make decision about the treatment options based on their preferences.
=> Address the patient’s perspective on the illness.
=> Consider psychosocial factors of the patient, cultural gap and language limits.
=> Consider the expansion of new communication practices and technologies and their impact on information processing, health decisions and behaviour.
Preferred Communication Style
=> Acceptance
=> Empathy
=> Frankness
=> Simplicity
=> Honesty
Fig. (1). Study flow diagram. The databases searched were PubMed, Web of Sciences, Scopus, Google scholar. The results were defined using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement to identify, select, and determine eligibility of papers for inclusion in the study.

Table 2. Included studies.
Authors Title Journal Methodology Partecipants Outcomes
Youssoufa M. Ousseine; et al. 2018 Association between health literacy, communication and psychological distress among myelodysplastic syndromes patients Lukemia Research Cross-sectional survey. Self- administrated questionnaire 280 MDS patients; 154 French and 126 Austrialian; median age 69.5 years. Inadequate functional Health Literacy was associated with higher global distress particularly in MDS patients due to the heterogeneity of the symdrome.
Mikkael A Sekeres: et al. 2011 Perceptions of disease state, treatment outcomes, and prognosis among patients with myelodysplastic syndromes: results from an internet-based survey The Oncologist Internet-based survey 3.131 patients were invited to participate; 361 completed the survey. The study shows that patients with MDS have a limited understanding of their disease, prognosis and treatment goals.
B. Douglas Smith, MD; 2015 Myelodysplastic Syndromes: Challenges to Improving Patient and Caregiver Satisfaction The American Journal of Medicine The sample included 358 patients. The median age: 65 years old. An effective physician and patients communication is demonstrated to impact on patients exploring behavior, potentially new curative treatments and clinical trials.
L. Elise Horvath Walsh; et al. 2019 Real-World Impact of Physician and Patient Discordance on Health-Related Quality of Life in US Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Oncology and Therapy Patient self-completion (PSC) form 61 physicians included 457 AML patients: 82 AML patients agreed to complete PSC from. 44% were female; the median age was 60 years old. The study reports a substantial discordance between patients-reported and physicians-estimated symptoms.
Lagadinou D. Eleni; et al. 2010 Challenges in treating older patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Journal of Oncology Review article This paper reviews the most optimal treatment strategies, risks and benefits for elderly AML patients. Results in allogeneic transplantation are very promising.
Lone S Friis; et al. 2003 The patient's perspective: a qualitative study of Acute Myeloid Leukemia patients' need for information and their information-seeking behavior Supportive Care in Cancer In-depth ethnographic interviews A total of 21 AML patients; 11 female and 10 male. Average age of the sample was: <50 (9); 50–70 (6) >70 (6) years old. This study demonstrates that the expressed attitude of the AML patients regarding the need for medical information is discordant with patient's real information-seeking behavior.
Areej El-Jawahri; et al. 2019 Patient-Clinician Discordance in Perceptions of Treatment Risks and Benefits in Older Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia The Oncologist Longitudinal study Newly diagnosed; 100 AML patients and 11 oncologists. Older AML patients over the age of 60 years old. Older AML patients overestimate both the risks and benefits of treatment and have misperceptions about their prognosis.
Thomas W LeBlanc; et al. 2017 Patient experiences of Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A qualitative study about diagnosis, illness understanding, and treatment decision-making Psychooncology Semi-structured qualitative interviews 32 AML patients completed the interview. Average age of 60 years old or older. This paper underlines the need for targeted interventions to improve AML patients' understanding of the disease and treatment options.

Due to the nature of AML disease and its rapid progression the patient is often forced to make quick decisions under a lot of pressure about available treatments and sometimes without a transparent and empathic behaviour from the physician. Physicians working with these patients are encouraged to work together with patients, their families, and also with the medical team to reach the best results. A qualitative study has described the way that patients newly diagnosed with AML experience medical and social challenges. Especially, researchers have focused on the emotional reaction of AML patients to the diagnosis, their information needs and treatment planning decisions. It was reported that the patients newly diagnosed with AML criticised the poor physician communicationand complained about an inconsistency between information provided and information required [32]. The results of the study,together with the complex medical information the AML patients have to deal with, explains why the majority of patients prefera more passive or collaborative decision-making approach as described by Yogaparan et al. [38]. How do patients perceive the potential risk and benefits of the therapy? Is it in accordance with the physician’s perception? El-Jawahri et al., performed a prospective analysis to examine the perception of older patients with AML regarding the risks and benefits and observed that the degree of prognostic misperception was prominent. The patients often overestimate the risk of treatment-related mortality compared to their oncologist. Similar discordances were observed with regard to the chance of cure: 90% of patients thought they were very likely to be cured of their leukaemia, whilst only 31% of the oncologists reported the same chance. Patients’ misperception may hinder a clear evaluation of the risk or benefit of the therapy supporting the importance of communication skills as tools to enhance patient knowledge and therefore the understanding of the impact the interventions can have on their health [39].

4. PATIENT-PHYSICIAN COMMUNICATION IN MYELODYSPLASTIC SYNDROME (MDS)

The myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs) area very heterogeneous potentially life-threatening myeloid disorders characterised by peripheral blood cytopenias and a tendency to progress to AML [40]. MDS occurs more often in older males and in individuals previously exposed to cytotoxic therapies such as chemotherapy or radiation therapy [41]. Since 2001, cases of MDSs have been tracked by cancer registries. In the United States, the incidence of MDS is reported to be 4.9 per 100,000 population/year for 2007–2011 [42]. Studies conducted in Europe, specifically in the Düsseldorf Registry described an incidence of 4.15 cases [43]; a Swiss study showed an incidence of 3.6 cases per million [44]; a Swedish study described 1,329 patients with MDS, corresponding to 2.9 cases per 100,000 population/year. The average age was 71, however in all registries the incidence gradually increases with age, making MDS one of the most common blood cancers in the elderly population [45]. Due to cytopenia and other symptoms such as fatigue, pain and anxiety, MDS can have an impact on a patient’s daily life and HRQoL [46]. In fact, a diagnosis of MDS can trigger psychological, social and economic stresson patients, besides the difficulty of understanding the disease and the aim of the treatment. In most patients with MDS,the fear for a possible progression of the disease to AML causes them often to experience a lack of hope and a feeling of anger towards the physician [47]. Depression occurs in 10%-22% of the patients with cancer and patients with MDS also have higher risk of depression [47, 48].

Sekeres et al. in 2011 demonstrated that MDS patients have a limited understanding of their disease, prognosis and treatment options [49]. Interestingly, a survey performed in patients with MDS suggests that patient understanding of treatment goals and prognosis is often limited, with a third of the patients reporting that prognosis was not discussed with their physician. In line with this finding, anotherstudy performed with MDS patients described a poor patient understanding of treatment goals and a lack of time and discussion with the physician [50]. Further studies have evaluated physicians’ perception of the health status of their patients and their desire to be involved in decisions showing that the physician did not adequately identify the patient’s preferences [18]. However, further findings have pointed out that MDS patients with severe health conditions prefer not to participate intreatment decisions and to leave treatment decisions to their physician [23]. In patients with MDS a lack of information received and understood may provoke feelings of distress.A cross sectional survey, conducted in France and Australia, showed that inadequate information exchange and communication with physicians were associated with higher distress reinforcing the importance of effective communication between patients and physicians [51]. Often medical routine examination is conducted at the expense of emotional and psychological status of the patient. Physicians should encourage open communication and facilitate exchange of psychological and emotional needs in order to support the patient well-being (Table 2).

CONCLUSION

Recognising patient-physician communication as a major patient-physician component in the relationship has become of fundamental importance. As changes have occurred in medical policy, including the introduction of consensus statements and guidelines, it became even more significant to progress further in the dyadic physician–patient interaction. Most patients complain about the detached attitude of the physician to their requests leading to misunderstandings and dissatisfaction. Patients want more information about their condition and treatment outcomes, more information on the side-effects of the treatments and prefer to be engaged in the therapeutic decision [52]. Several studies have indicated that effective patient-physician communication is related to improved adherence to treatment regimens, better decision making, less medical malpractice claims, and increased satisfaction [3, 22, 53]. Opting for an open, responsive, and mutual decision-making relationship is not only to the advantage of the patients but also to the physicians. In fact physicians, who practice relationship-centered care with patients, have been found to be more satisfied with their profession [54]. An effective patient-physician communication, particularly in cancer care, helps physicians in delivering bad news. Accordingly, cancer communication research indicates that the manner in which clinicians address disease issues plays a key role in the continuing adjustment of patients with cancer [4, 55-58]. Thus, it is clear that communication skills, including delivering bad news, should be taught and it has been demonstrated that these competencies can be learnt by the physicians [59]. As a consequence, over the last years, health care organizations have implemented communication skills training for physicians to enhance patients’ satisfaction with the quality of care received [4]. In the physician-patient dyad, there also emerged the current need to consider the new online healthcare community and their impact on information processing, health decisions and behaviour, and the quality of life of the patient. The extensive use of information and communication technology as a source of health information raised concerns about its effects on the physician-patient relationship. Concerns include access of multiple information sources that can result in mistaken self-evaluation and self-treatment by the patient and disagreements with the physician’s practice [60, 61]. However,studies have reported that for some physicians exposure to online health information can have a positive impact on a patient’s sense of confidence and control during interactions, as well as improving the patient’s understanding of medical heath issues [62, 63]. Given these considerations, the experience and physician’s encouragement are even more necessary to help the patient to interpret and apply this information. As studies have indicated, efficient communication and educational resources can increase understanding of disease and achieve better results, including improved treatment outcomes. Physicians have to takea new approach to ensure; i) that the patients truly understand, taking the time when needed to counsel and listen to patients; ii] to remain committed to their work; iii) to improve collaboration and coordination with the medical team [64, 65]. In conclusion, the research on physician-patient communication and interaction still need further analysis and requires implementation of methods and intervention models that can define the rules to regulate the physician-patient relationship.

CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION

Not applicable.

FUNDING

None.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Declared none.

REFERENCES

[1] McAlinden C. The importance of doctor–patient communication. British J Hospital Med 2014; 75(2): 64-5.
[2] Fiorini F, Granata A. La comunicazione Medico-Paziente. G Ital Nefrol 2019; 5.
[3] Ruberton PM, Huynh HP, Miller TA, Kruse E, Chancellor J, Lyubomirsky S. The relationship between physician humility, physician-patient communication, and patient health. Patient Educ Couns 2016; 99(7): 1138-45.
[4] Maguire P. Key communication skills and how to acquire them. BMJ 2002; 325(7366): 697-700.
[5] Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Gandek B, Rogers WH, Ware JE Jr. Characteristics of physicians with participatory decision-making styles. Ann Intern Med 1996; 124(5): 497-504.
[6] Stewart MA. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: A review. CAN MED ASSOC J maggio 1995; 11
[7] McGuinness KM. Institutional decision making: empowering of health system and economic transformation. Am Psychol 2014; 69(8): 817-27.
[8] Brand PLP, Stiggelbout AM. Effective follow-up consultations: the importance of patient-centered communication and shared decision making. Paediat Resp Reviews 2013; 14(4): 224-8.
[9] Stevenson FA, Barry CA, Britten N, Barber N, Bradley CP. Doctor-patient communication about drugs: the evidence for shared decision making. Soc Sci Med 2000; 50(6): 829-40.
[10] Rathert C, Wyrwich MD, Boren SA. Patient-centered care and outcomes: A systematic review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev 2013; 70(4): 351-79.
[11] Simpson M, Buckman R, Stewart M, et al. Doctor-patient communication: the Toronto consensus statement. BMJ 1991; 303(6814): 1385-7.
[12] Mercer SW. The consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure: development and preliminary validation and reliability of an empathy-based consultation process measure. Family Practice 1 ottobre 2004; 21(6): 699-705.
[13] Hashim MJ. Patient-centered communication. Basic Skills 2017; 95(1): 29-34.
[14] Krupat E, Bell RA, Kravitz RL, Thom D, Azari R. When physicians and patients think alike: patient-centered beliefs and their impact on satisfaction and trust. J Fam Pract 2001; 50(12): 1057-62.
[15] Ratzan SC. Health literacy: communication for the public good. Health Promotion International 1 giugno 2001; 16(2): 207-14.
[16] Roodbeen R, Vreke A, Boland G, Rademakers J, van den Muijsenbergh M, Noordman J, et al. Communication and shared decision-making with patients with limited health literacy; helpful strategies, barriers and suggestions for improvement reported by hospital-based palliative care providers MacLure K, curatore PLoS ONE 19 giugno 2020; 15(6): e0234926.
[17] Berger R, Bulmash B, Drori N, Ben-Assuli O, Herstein R. The patient–physician relationship: an account of the physician’s perspective. Isr J Health Policy Res dicembre 2020; 9(1): 33.
[18] Caocci G, Voso MT, Angelucci E, et al. Accuracy of physician assessment of treatment preferences and health status in elderly patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Leuk Res 2015; 39(8): 859-65.
[19] Perron NJ, Secretan F, Vannotti M, Pecoud A, Favrat B. Patient expectations at a multicultural out-patient clinic in Switzerland. Fam Pract 2003; 20(4): 428-33.
[20] Friis LS, Elverdam B, Schmidt KG. The patient’s perspective: a qualitative study of acute myeloid leukaemia patients’ need for information and their information-seeking behaviour. Support Care Cancer 2003; 11(3): 162-70.
[21] Husson O, Mols F, Fransen MP, van de Poll-Franse LV, Ezendam NPM. Low subjective health literacy is associated with adverse health behaviors and worse health-related quality of life among colorectal cancer survivors: results from the profiles registry: Health literacy and health outcomes. Psycho-Oncology 2015; 24(4): 478-86.
[22] Ong LML, de Haes JCJM, Hoos AM, Lammes FB. Doctor-patient communication: A review of the literature. Soc Sci Med 1995; 40(7): 903-18.
[23] Efficace F, Gaidano G, Sprangers M, Cottone F, Breccia M, Voso MT, et al. Preference for involvement in treatment decisions and request for prognostic information in newly diagnosed patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Annals of Oncology 2014; 25(2): 447-54.
[24] Kaplowitz SA, Campo S, Chiu WT. Cancer patients’ desires for communication of prognosis information. Health Communication 2002; 14(2): 221-41.
[25] Hagerty RG, Butow PN, Ellis PM, Dimitry S, Tattersall MHN. Communicating prognosis in cancer care: A systematic review of the literature. Annals of Oncology 2005; 16(7): 1005-53.
[26] Butow PN, Maclean M, Dunn SM, Tattersall MHN, Boyer MJ. The dynamics of change: cancer patients’ preferences for information, involvement and support. Ann Oncol 1997; 8(9): 857-63.
[27] Wenrich MD, Curtis JR, Shannon SE, Carline JD, Ambrozy DM, Ramsey PG. Communicating with dying patients within the spectrum of medical care from terminal diagnosis to death. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161(6): 868-74.
[28] Butow PN, Dowsett S, Hagerty R, Tattersall MH. Communicating prognosis to patients with metastatic disease: what do they really want to know? Support Care Cancer 2002; 10(2): 161-8.
[29] Willson P J RM. How perceptions of a simulated physician-patient interaction influence intended satisfaction and compliance. Soc Sci Med 1982; 16(19): 1699-704.
[30] Tongue JR, Epps HR, Forese LL. Communication skills for patient-centred care: Research-based, easily learned techniques for medical interviews that benefit orthopaedic surgeons and their patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87(3): 652-8.
[31] Gilligan T, Coyle N, Frankel RM, Berry DL, Bohlke K, Epstein RM, et al. Patient-clinician communication: American society of clinical oncology consensus guideline. The Bottom Line 1
[32] LeBlanc TW, Fish LJ, Bloom CT, El-Jawahri A, Davis DM, Locke SC, et al. Patient experiences of acute myeloid leukemia: A qualitative study about diagnosis, illness understanding, and treatment decision-making: Acute myeloid leukemia patient experiences. Psycho-Oncology 2017; 26(12): 2063-8.
[33] Vaughn JE, Shankaran V, Walter RB. Trends in clinical benefits and costs of novel therapeutics in aml: at what price does progress come? Curr Hematol Malig Rep 2019; 14(3): 171-8.
[34] Dong Y, Shi O, Zeng Q, Lu X, Wang W, Li Y, et al. Leukemia incidence trends at the global, regional, and national level between 1990 and 2017. Exp Hematol Oncol dicembre 2020; 9(1): 14.
[35] Yi M, Li A, Zhou L, Chu Q, Song Y, Wu K. The global burden and attributable risk factor analysis of acute myeloid leukemia in 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2017: estimates based on the global burden of disease study 2017. J Hematol Oncol 2020; 13(1): 72.
[36] Eleni LD, Nicholas ZC, Alexandros S. Challenges in treating older patients with acute myeloid leukemia. J Oncol 2010; 2010: 943823.
[37] Horvath Walsh LE, Rider A, Piercy J, Pike J, Wilson S, Pandya BJ, et al. Real-world impact of physician and patient discordance on health-related quality of life in us patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Oncol Ther giugno 2019; 7(1): 67-81.
[38] Yogaparan T, Panju A, Minden M, Brandwein J, Mohamedali HZ, Alibhai SMH. Information needs of adult patients 50 or older with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia Research 2009; 33(9): 1288-90.
[39] El-Jawahri A, Nelson-Lowe M, VanDusen H, Traeger L, Abel GA, Greer JA, et al. Patient-clinician discordance in perceptions of treatment risks and benefits in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia. The Oncol 2019; 24(2): 247-54.
[40] Stojkov K, Silzle T, Stussi G, et al. Guideline-based indicators for adult patients with myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood Adv 2020; 4(16): 4029-44.
[41] Garcia-Manero G, Chien KS, Montalban-Bravo G. Myelodysplastic syndromes: 2021 update on diagnosis, risk stratification and management. 2021; 22
[42] Cogle CR. Incidence and Burden of the Myelodysplastic Syndromes. Curr Hematol Malig Rep 2015; 10(3): 272-81.
[43] Neukirchen J, Schoonen WM, Strupp C, Gattermann N, Aul C, Haas R, et al. Incidence and prevalence of myelodysplastic syndromes: Data from the Düsseldorf MDS-registry. Leukemia Research 2011; 35(12): 1591-6.
[44] Bonadies N, Feller A, Rovo A, Ruefer A, Blum S, Gerber B. Trends of classification, incidence, mortality, and survival of MDS patients in Switzerland between 2001 and 2012. Cancer Epidemiology 2017; 46: 85-92.
[45] Greenberg PL, Tuechler H, Schanz J, Sanz G, Garcia-Manero G, Solé F, et al. Revised international prognostic scoring system for myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood 2012; 120(12): 2454-65.
[46] Stauder R. Health-related quality of life in lower-risk MDS patients compared with age- and sex-matched reference populations: a European LeukemiaNet study. 13
[47] Thomas ML, Crisp N, Campbell K. The importance of quality of life for patients living with myelodysplastic syndromes. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing 2012; 16(0): 47-57.
[48] Ream E, Pallister C, Clarke H. Cancer and quality of life: Recent advances, current controversies 2004.
[49] Sekeres MA, Maciejewski JP, List AF, Steensma DP, Artz A, Swern AS, et al. Perceptions of disease state, treatment outcomes, and prognosis among patients with myelodysplastic syndromes: Results from an internet-based survey. The Oncologist 2011; 16(6): 904-11.
[50] Smith BD. Myelodysplastic syndromes: Challenges to improving patient and caregiver satisfaction. Am J Med 2012; 125(7): S26-30.
[51] Ousseine YM, Butow PN, Fenaux P, Dring R, Festy P, Restivo L, et al. Association between health literacy, communication and psychological distress among myelodysplastic syndromes patients. Leukemia Research 2018; 73: 44-50.
[52] Kravitz RL. Measuring patients’ expectations and requests. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134(9_Part_2): 881.
[53] Levinson W, Roter DL, Mullooly JP, Dull VT, Frankel RM. Physician-patient communication: the relationship with malpractice claims among primary care physicians and surgeons. JAMA 1977; 277(7): 553-9.
[54] Ramirez A, Graham J, Richards M, Cull A, Gregory W, Leaning M, et al. Burnout and psychiatric disorder among cancer clinicians. Br J Cancer 1995; 71(6): 1263-9.
[55] Ford S, Fallowfield L, Lewis S. Doctor-patient interactions in oncology. Soc Sci Med 1996; 42(11): 1511-9.
[56] Wool MS. Teaching and learning communication skills in medicine (2e). Health Expect 2005; 8(4): 363-5.
[57] Baile WF, Buckman R, Lenzi R, Glober G, Beale EA, Kudelka AP. SPIKES-A six-step protocol for delivering bad news: Application to the patient with cancer. Oncologist 2000; 5(4): 302-11.
[58] Ford S, Hall A. Communication behaviours of skilled and less skilled oncologists: A validation study of the Medical Interaction Process System (MIPS). Patient Edu Counsel 2004; 54(3): 275-82.
[59] Passalacqua SA. Teaching and Learning Communication Skills in Medicine: (2nd ed.).Health Commun 2009; 24(6): 572-4.
[60] Walker JM, Carayon P. From tasks to processes: the case for changing health information technology to improve health care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2009; 28(2): 467-77.
[61] de Oliveira JF. The effect of the internet on the patient-doctor relationship in a hospital in the city of São Paulo. 2014; 11: 18.
[62] Kim J, Kim S. Physicians’ perception of the effects of internet health information on the doctor–patient relationship. Informatics for Health and Social Care 2009; 34(3): 136-48.
[63] Wang J, Ashvetiya T, Quaye E, Parakh K, Martin SS. The future of care — preserving the patient–physician relationship. N Engl J Med 2018; 381(23): 2265-9.
[64] Noseworthy J. The future of care — preserving the patient–physician relationship. N Engl J Med 2019; 381(23): 2265-9.
[65] Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Clarke M, et al. PRISMA Statement per il reporting di revisioni sistematiche e meta-analisi degli studi che valutano gli interventi sanitari: spiegazione ed elaborazione. OPEN ACCESS 2015; 7(6): 36.