Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-xbbwl Total loading time: 0.293 Render date: 2021-03-04T10:39:01.810Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Repeating what is already known without increasing understanding is a waste of resources

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 October 2015

Pär Salander
Affiliation:
Department of Social Work, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Image of the first page of this article
Type
Letter to the Editor
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Dear Editor,

Recently, Palliative & Supportive Care published a study by Meggiolaro et al. (Reference Meggiolaro, Berrardi and Andritsch2015) that had the dual purpose of examining the rate of and difference between “emotional distress” (measured by the Distress Thermometer) and “maladaptive coping” (gauged with the Mini-MAC) and examining the association between those variables and cancer patients' subjective perceptions of their interactions with their doctors (using The Physician Patient Satisfaction with Doctors Questionnaire). In the introduction to that paper, the authors made it clear that these topics certainly have been elaborated on in many previous studies, but they differentiated their work by including patients from three different countries in order to “extend our understanding.”

Reading this study, however, a significant question presents itself: How can a repetition of correlations between these variables, even if conducted in different countries, “extend our understanding”?

After ambitious statistical elaborations, Meggiolaro and colleagues (Reference Meggiolaro, Berrardi and Andritsch2015) provide us with many exact percentages, correlational coefficients, and p values. They then in the discussion summarize as follows:

  • Many patients are distressed, and these results are “in line with other studies.” “Constantly monitoring” is recommended.

  • Many patients make use of “maladaptive coping,” and this is “confirming what [is] already shown.” The “psychosocial domain” is recommended to be included in clinical practice.

  • Hopelessness and distress are connected to experiencing the physician as disengaged, which “support[s] other studies.” “Communication skills training” is recommended.

  • An inter-country difference in the assessment of Austrian (“more engaged”) and Italian (“more cold”) physicians is, even if faintly, suggested to be related to “different levels of training in communication skills.” However, we do not get to know whether Austrian physicians are more often trained in “communication skills”!

We thus get to know that many patients with cancer are distressed, that some patients cope better than others, and that it is beneficial to have an communicative doctor. This is something that has long been well known, and adding some new exact percentages or correlations (“more of the same”) hardly does anything to “extend our understanding.” In the absence of an extended understanding, the authors end up simply prescribing the well-known and superficial “darlings” from many correlational studies—“monitoring/screening” and “communication skills training”—and the study concludes with the overall conclusion that “physicians should monitor these variables [emotional distress and maladaptive coping] in their patients and adjust their communication and relational styles accordingly.” This conclusion is most certainly a truism and can in no sense provide us with clinical guidance! The prescription is also problematic as it takes for granted that “monitoring/screening” and “communication skills training” will improve the care of patients with cancer. This is far from self-evident (see, e.g., Merckaert et al., Reference Merckaert, Libert and Messin2010; Moore et al., Reference Moore, Rivera Mercado and Grez Artiques2013; Ito et al., Reference Ito, Shimizu and Ichida2011; van Scheppingen et al., Reference van Scheppingen, Schroevers and Smink2011; Salmon & Young, Reference Salmon and Young2011; Salmon et al., Reference Salmon, Clark and McGrath2015).

When reading Meggiolaro et al.'s (Reference Meggiolaro, Berrardi and Andritsch2015) study, a series of papers published in The Lancet about a year ago come to mind. One called for increased critical self-reflection in current biomedical research by suggesting improvements in the interest of “increasing value and reducing waste” (Kleinert & Norton, Reference Kleinert and Norton2014). This series of papers scrutinized different kinds of waste, ranging from unreflected research priorities to poor research designs, which result in the absence of a contribution to the accumulation of new knowledge. I do think that their call for reflection is also of relevance for psychosocial oncology.

As researchers in psychosocial oncology, we have a mission to conduct studies that can improve the care of patients with cancer. Purely descriptive correlational studies repeating that cancer implies distress, that some patients cope better than others, and that it is beneficial to have a communicative doctor are not very helpful. We do not need “more of the same.” We do need increased understanding, because understanding is a prerequisite to guiding change. Before conducting new studies, I think it is a good idea to more critically scrutinize whether the planned design really has the potential to say something more than what is self-evident or is already known, something that can contribute to change—to “increase value.” Just saying what is already known is a waste of time and resources.

References

Ito, T., Shimizu, K., Ichida, Y., et al. (2011). Usefulness of pharmacist-assisted screening and psychiatric referral program for outpatients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Psycho-Oncology, 20, 647654.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kleinert, S. & Norton, R. (2014). How should medical science change? Lancet, 383, 197198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meggiolaro, E., Berrardi, M.A., Andritsch, E., et al. (2015). Cancer patients' emotional distress, coping styles and perception of the doctor–patient interaction in European cancer settings. Palliative & Supportive Care, 14, 204211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merckaert, I., Libert, Y., Messin, S., et al. (2010). Cancer patients' desire for psychological support: Prevalence and implications for screening patients' psychological needs. Psycho-Oncology, 19, 141149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, P.M., Rivera Mercado, S., Grez Artiques, M., et al. (2013). Communication skills training for health care professionals working with people who have cancer. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Published online March 28, 2013. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003751.pub3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salmon, P. & Young, B. (2011). Creativity in clinical communication: From communication skills to skilled communication. Medical Education, 45, 217226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salmon, P., Clark, L., McGrath, E., et al. (2015). Screening for psychological distress in cancer: Renewing the research agenda. Psycho-Oncology, 24, 262268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Scheppingen, C., Schroevers, M.J., Smink, A., et al. (2011). Does screening for distress efficiently uncover meetable unmet needs in cancer patients? Psycho-Oncology, 20, 655663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 27
Total number of PDF views: 101 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 4th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Repeating what is already known without increasing understanding is a waste of resources
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Repeating what is already known without increasing understanding is a waste of resources
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Repeating what is already known without increasing understanding is a waste of resources
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *