Cited by 31Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePain Management and Opioid UsePalliative and Oncologic Care

Improving communication in cancer pain management nursing: a randomized controlled study assessing the efficacy of a communication skills training program

Canivet, Delphine, Delvaux, Nicole, Gibon, Anne-Sophie, Brancart, Cyrielle, Slachmuylder, Jean-Louis, Razavi, Darius·2014·Supportive Care in Cancer

Abstract

Purpose Effective communication is needed for optimal cancer pain management. This study assessed the efficacy of a general communication skills training program for oncology nurses on communication about pain management. Methods A total of 115 nurses were randomly assigned to a training group (TG) or control group (CG). The assessment included the recording of interviews with a simulated cancer patient at baseline for both groups and after training (TG) or 3 months after baseline (CG). Two psychologists rated the content of interview transcripts to assess cancer pain management communication. Group-by-time effects were measured using a generalized estimating equation. Results Trained nurses asked the simulated patient more questions about emotions associated with pain (relative rate [RR] = 4.28, p = 0.049) and cognitions associated with pain treatment (RR = 3.23, p Conclusions The general communication skills training program improved only a few of the communication strategies needed for optimal cancer pain management in nursing. General communication skills training programs should be consolidated using specific modules focusing on communication skills related to cancer pain management.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00520-014-2357-2

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Canivet, D., Delvaux, N., Gibon, A.-S., Brancart, C., Slachmuylder, J.-L., & Razavi, D.
Affiliations
Université Libre de Bruxelles (BE)
Corresponding author
Razavi, Darius
Venue
Supportive Care in Cancer
Published
2014-08-08
Volume
22
Issue
12
Pages
3311-3320
ISSN
  • 0941-4355 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-7339
OpenAlex
W2010171072
Cited by
31
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
6.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Supportive Care in Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
Keywords
cancer pain management, nurse-patient communication, communication skills training, oncology nursing, paternalism, pain-related emotions, standardized patients, nursing education
MeSH terms
Adult, Communication, Education, Educational Measurement, Emotions, Female, Humans, Male, Neoplasms, Nurse-Patient Relations, Pain, Research Design, Patient Simulation, Efficiency, Organizational, Emotional Intelligence, Pain Management, Social Skills

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review