SpringerLink
Log in

Thyroid Cancer Risk Communication in Patients with Thyroid Nodules

  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this study is to evaluate thyroid cancer risk clinician-patient communication among patients receiving usual counseling and counseling enhanced by a conversation aid. A secondary analysis of clinical visit recordings and post-visit surveys obtained during a trial assessing the impact of a conversation aid for patients with thyroid nodules was conducted. We assessed how thyroid cancer risk was communicated, different risk communication strategies between groups, and predictors of accurate cancer risk perception. Fifty-nine patients were analyzed. Most were women (90%) and middle-aged (median 57 years). A verbal description of thyroid cancer risk was present most frequently (83%) and was more frequent in the conversation aid than the usual care group (100% vs. 63%, p < 0.001). A numerical description using percentages was present in 41% of visits and was more frequent in the conversation aid group (59% vs. 19%, p = 0.012). Natural frequencies (7%) and positive/negative framing (10%) were utilized less commonly. Uncertainty about risks was not discussed. No predictors of accurate risk perception were identified. Clinicians most commonly present a verbal description of thyroid cancer risk. Less commonly, natural frequencies, negative/positive framing, or uncertainty is discussed. Clinicians caring for patients with thyroid nodules should be aware of different strategies for communicating thyroid cancer risk.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Canada)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Haugen BR, Alexander EK, Bible KC et al (2016) 2015 American Thyroid Association Management Guidelines for Adult Patients with Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: The American Thyroid Association Guidelines Task Force on Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. Thyroid 26:1–133. https://doi.org/10.1089/thy.2015.0020

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Singh Ospina N, Iñiguez-Ariza NM, Castro MR (2020) Thyroid nodules: diagnostic evaluation based on thyroid cancer risk assessment. BMJ 368:l6670. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6670

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tessler FN, Middleton WD, Grant EG et al (2017) ACR Thyroid Imaging, Reporting and Data System (TI-RADS): White Paper of the ACR TI-RADS Committee. J Am Coll Radiol JACR 14:587–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.01.046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Edwards A, Elwyn G (2001) Understanding risk and lessons for clinical risk communication about treatment preferences. Qual Health Care QHC 10(Suppl 1):i9-13. https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.0100009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Klein WMP, Stefanek ME (2007) Cancer risk elicitation and communication: lessons from the psychology of risk perception. CA Cancer J Clin 57:147–167. https://doi.org/10.3322/canjclin.57.3.147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Singh Ospina N, Castaneda-Guarderas A, Ward R et al (2018) Patients’ knowledge about the outcomes of thyroid biopsy: a patient survey. Endocrine 61:482–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12020-018-1639-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ospina NMS, Bagautdinova D, Hargraves I, Barb D et al (2022) Development and pilot testing of a conversation aid to support the evaluation of patients with thyroid nodules. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 96(4):627–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/cen.14599

  8. Timmermans D, Molewijk B, Stiggelbout A, Kievit J (2004) Different formats for communicating surgical risks to patients and the effect on choice of treatment. Patient Educ Couns 54:255–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00238-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bonner C, Trevena LJ, Gaissmaier W et al (2021) Current best practice for presenting probabilities in patient decision aids: fundamental principles. Med Decis Making 41:821–833. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X21996328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Andreadis K, Chan E, Park M et al (2021) Imprecision and preferences in interpretation of verbal probabilities in health: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 36:3820–3829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-07050-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA et al (2007) Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale. Med Decis Mak Int J Soc Med Decis Mak 27:672–680. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X07304449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cunny KA, Perri M (1991) Single-item vs multiple-item measures of health-related quality of life. Psychol Rep 69:127–130. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1991.69.1.127

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chew LD, Griffin JM, Partin MR et al (2008) Validation of screening questions for limited health literacy in a large VA outpatient population. J Gen Intern Med 23:561–566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0520-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Chew LD, Bradley KA, Boyko EJ (2004) Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy. Fam Med 36:588–594

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R et al (2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42:377–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Brito JP, Moon JH, Zeuren R et al (2018) Thyroid cancer treatment choice: a pilot study of a tool to facilitate conversations with patients with papillary microcarcinomas considering treatment options. Thyroid Off J Am Thyroid Assoc 28:1325–1331. https://doi.org/10.1089/thy.2018.0105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. van de Water LF, van Kleef JJ, Dijksterhuis WPM et al (2020) Communicating treatment risks and benefits to cancer patients: a systematic review of communication methods. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil 29:1747–1766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02503-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Schwartz PH, O’Doherty KC, Bentley C et al (2021) Layperson views about the design and evaluation of decision aids: a public deliberation. Med Decis Mak Int J Soc Med Decis Mak 41:527–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X21998980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Maiga AW, Deppen SA, Massion PP et al (2018) Communication about the probability of cancer in indeterminate pulmonary nodules. JAMA Surg 153:353–357. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.4878

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Janz NK, Hawley ST et al (2016) Communication of recurrence risk estimates to patients diagnosed with breast cancer. JAMA Oncol 2:684–686. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.6416

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Katapodi MC, Dodd MJ, Facione NC et al (2010) Why some women have an optimistic or a pessimistic bias about their breast cancer risk: experiences, heuristics, and knowledge of risk factors. Cancer Nurs 33:64–73. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0b013e3181b430f9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kang SK, Scherer LD, Megibow AJ et al (2018) A randomized study of patient risk perception for incidental renal findings on diagnostic imaging tests. AJR Am J Roentgenol 210:369–375. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18485

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Engelhardt EG, Pieterse AH, Han PKJ et al (2017) Disclosing the uncertainty associated with prognostic estimates in breast cancer. Med Decis Mak Int J Soc Med Decis Mak 37:179–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X16670639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K et al (2017) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD001431. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bayne M, Fairey M, Silarova B et al (2020) Effect of interventions including provision of personalised cancer risk information on accuracy of risk perception and psychological responses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Educ Couns 103:83–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.08.010

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Kravitz RL, Hays RD, Sherbourne CD et al (1993) Recall of recommendations and adherence to advice among patients with chronic medical conditions. Arch Intern Med 153:1869–1878

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the Gatorade Trust through funds distributed by the University of Florida, Department of Medicine and the Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) grant support (NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) grant UL1 TR000064). NSO was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K08CA248972. SM was supported by the Arkansas Biosciences Institute, the major research component of the Arkansas Tobacco Settlement Proceeds Act of 2000. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Diliara Bagautdinova & Debbie Treise

  2. Center & Department of Biostatistics, University of Florida Health Cancer Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Shu Wang

  3. Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Juan P. Brito

  4. Health Outcomes & Biomedical Informatics, Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Carma L. Bylund

  5. Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, University of Florida, 1600 SW Archer Road, Room H2, Gainesville, FL, 32606, USA

    Catherine Edwards & Naykky Singh Ospina

  6. Center for Immunotherapy & Precision Immuno-Oncology, Head & Neck Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Natalie Silver

  7. Ear, Nose & Throat, Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Deepa Danan

  8. Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit in Endocrinology (KER_Endo), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Spyridoula Maraka & Ian Hargraves

  9. Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA

    Spyridoula Maraka

  10. Endocrine Section, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, Little Rock, AR, USA

    Spyridoula Maraka

Authors
  1. Diliara Bagautdinova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shu Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juan P. Brito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carma L. Bylund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Catherine Edwards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Natalie Silver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Deepa Danan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Debbie Treise
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Spyridoula Maraka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ian Hargraves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Naykky Singh Ospina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naykky Singh Ospina.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 121 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bagautdinova, D., Wang, S., Brito, J.P. et al. Thyroid Cancer Risk Communication in Patients with Thyroid Nodules. J Canc Educ 38, 1234–1240 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-022-02253-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-022-02253-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation