Developing and evaluating a course programme to enhance existential communication with cancer patients in general practice

Figures & data

Figure 1. (a) Changes in GPs’ self-efficacy regarding the eight listed communication skills and competences from before the course (T1) to immediately after the course (T2). (b) Changes in GPs’ perceived importance of the eight communication skills from T1 to T2.

Table 1. Demographic and professional characteristics of course participants.

Baseline characteristics	Category	N (%)
Number of participants		19 (100)
Age (mean age 49)	< 50	12 (63)
	≥ 50	7 (37)
Gender	Male	6 (32)
	Female	13 (68)
Have you participated in communication courses after having completed your medical education?	Yes	14 (74)
	No	4 (21)
	Don’t know	1 (5)
Years of experience as a GP	Is currently in education	5 (26)
	1 year–less than 2 years	0 (0)
	2 years–less than 5 years	1 (5)
	5 years–less than 10 years	5 (26)
	10 years or more	8 (42)
Are you a believer?	Yes	9 (47)
	No	7 (37)
	Don’t know	3 (16)
Nationality	Danish	18 (95)
	Danish and other nationality	1 (5)

Table 2(a). Mean scores of self-efficacy for (T1) and (T2).

How confident do you feel being able to…
	Mean (SD)		p Values	Number of participants whose score after the course was
Questions	Before	After	t-test	One point less than before	The same as before	One point more than before	Two points more than before	Three points more than before
communicate about existential concerns and needs in connection with a disease?	3.4 (0.8)	3.9 (0.6)	0.001	0 (0)	10 (53)	8 (42)	1 (5)	0 (0)
communicate about R/S concerns and needs in connection with a disease?	2.9 (1.1)	3.7 (0.7)	0.002	1 (5)	8 (42)	6 (32)	3 (16)	1 (5)
listen actively and being present?	3.9 (0.8)	4.5 (0.6)	0.000	0 (0)	7 (37)	12 (63)	0 (0)	0 (0)
endure in situations without a solution or a right answer?	3.5 (0.9)	3.7 (0.8)	0.130	3 (16)	10 (53)	5 (26)	1 (5)	0 (0)
recognize own professional limits?	4.0 (0.5)	4.2 (0.6)	0.165	3 (16)	10 (53)	6 (32)	0 (0)	0 (0)
reflect upon own existential and/or R/S values brought into the consultation?	3.2 (0.9)	4.0 (0.7)	0.000	0 (0)	7 (37)	8 (42)	4 (21)	0 (0)
work with own barriers to communicating about existential and R/S issues?	3.1 (0.8)	3.9 (0.6)	0.000	0 (0)	8 (42)	7 (37)	3 (16)	1 (5)
make an action plan with the patient based on his/her existential and/or R/S needs?	3.0 (0.7)	3.4 (0.7)	0.014	2 (11)	8 (42)	8 (42)	1 (5)	0 (0)

Table 2(b). Mean scores of perceived importance for the eight questions at (T1) and (T2).

How important is it for you to be able to ….in your daily professional work?
	Number of participants whose score after the course was
Questions	One point less than before	The same as before	One point more than before	Two points more than before
communicate about existential concerns and needs in connection with a disease?	4 (21)	10 (53)	5 (26)	0 (0)
communicate about R/S concerns and needs in connection with a disease?	1 (5)	11 (58)	6 (32)	1 (5)
listen actively and being present?	0 (0)	16 (84)	3 (16)	0 (0)
endure in situations without a solution or right answer?	3 (16)	14 (74)	2 (11)	0 (0)
recognize own professional limits?	2 (11)	15 (79)	2 (11)	0 (0)
reflect upon own existential and/or R/S values brought into the consultation?	4 (21)	13 (68)	2 (11)	0 (0)
work with own barriers to communicating about existential and R/S issues?	3 (16)	8 (42)	8 (42)	0 (0)
make an action plan with the patient based on his/her existential and/or R/S needs?	3 (16)	12 (63)	4 (21)	0 (0)

Table 3. Participants’ evaluations of the training.

To what degree have you obtained new relevant knowledge? (N = 19)	N (%)
High degree	7 (37)
Some degree	10 (53)
Less degree	2 (11)
Not at all	0
How satisfied were you with the overall content of the training course? (N = 19)
Very satisfied	14 (74)
Satisfied	5 (26)
Less satisfied	0
Not at all satisfied	0
Compared to before you participated in the training course do you perceive your competences in communicating about existential issues to be (N = 19)
Much better	1 (5)
Better	17 (89)
Unchanged	1 (5)
Worse	0