Related Experiment Videos
Evaluating the Impact of VOICE (Values and Outcomes to Improve Cancer Experiences), a Values-Clarification Tool,
Amy C Cole1,2, Angela M Stover3,4, Andy J King5
1The University of North Carolina, School of Data and Information Sciences, Carolina Health Informatics Program, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Background:
Patients often report that clinical guidance does not reflect personal values, such as balancing survival with quality of life. Values-clarification tools can improve treatment alignment but have been understudied.
Objective:
To evaluate the impact of the Values and Outcomes to Improve Cancer Experiences (VOICE) tool on values clarification and shared decision making (SDM) in simulated encounters.
Methods:
Adults (age ≥60 y) with advanced cancer were randomized to receive VOICE or an American Cancer Society (ACS) communication guide. Participants completed 2 simulated decision-making encounters in randomized order, values based (VB; clinician-initiated discussion of patient values) and non-values based (NVB; values addressed only if patient initiates), with medical students. Two independent raters assessed values‑clarification and SDM behaviors (interrater reliability = 0.82). Patient-reported SDM was assessed with validated measures. Postsimulation interviews were thematically analyzed.
Results:
Forty-four adults (aged 60-88 y) participated in 88 simulated encounters focused on discussing a secondary cancer diagnosis and treatment options. VOICE recipients demonstrated higher rater-assessed values clarification than those receiving the ACS guide in VB (91.5 vs 80.1, P = 0.01) and NVB (25.2 vs 16.2, P = 0.01) encounters. During NVB encounters, more participants receiving VOICE initiated a values discussion (48% vs 13%). Values-clarification ratings were higher when clinicians initiated VB discussions than patient-initiated discussions (92.9 vs 35.7; P < 0.001). Patient-reported SDM was better in VB versus NVB encounters (relative risk [RR] = 1.71, P = 0.04). VOICE better prepared participants for SDM (70.0 vs 0.0; P < 0.001). Qualitative findings suggest VOICE led to greater self-reflection and values clarification.
Conclusions:
In this randomized simulation study, VOICE improved older adults' preparation for values-based discussions and supported reflection on how treatment options align with what matters most to them. Findings highlight the importance of pairing values-clarification tools with clinician-initiated values-based discussions and for further evaluation in real-world settings.
Related Concept Videos
Cancer Survival Analysis
Patient-centered Care
Nursing Evaluation
Section...
Nursing Ethical Principles II
Consider the following scenario, which illustrates how these principles are applied in the care of Mr. John, a fifty-year-old teacher diagnosed with metastatic liver cancer.
Initially, Mr. John's cancer...
Techniques of therapeutic communication I: Active Listening, Sharing Observations, Validation, and Using Touch
Therapeutic communication is not the same as social interaction. Social interaction has no goal or purpose and consists of casual information sharing, whereas therapeutic communication has a plan or purpose for the conversation. Therapeutic...
Role of Communication in the Nursing Process III: Evaluation and Documentation