Clinician characteristics, communication, and patient outcome in oncology: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to review the literature on clinician characteristics influencing patient-clinician communication or patient outcome in oncology. METHODS: Studies investigating the association of clinician characteristics with quality of communication and with outcome for adult cancer patients were systematically searched in MEDLINE, PSYINFO, PUBMED, EMBASE, CINHAL, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library up to November 2012. We used the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement to guide our review. Articles were extracted independently by two of the authors using predefined criteria. RESULTS: Twenty seven articles met the inclusion criteria. Clinician characteristics included a variety of sociodemographic, relational, and personal characteristics. A positive impact on quality of communication and/or patient outcome was reported for communication skills training, an external locus of control, empathy, a socioemotional approach, shared decision-making style, higher anxiety, and defensiveness. A negative impact was reported for increased level of fatigue and burnout and expression of worry. Professional experience of clinicians was not related to communication and/or to patient outcome, and divergent results were reported for clinician gender, age, stress, posture, and confidence or self-efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Various clinician characteristics have different effects on quality of communication and/or patient outcome. Research is needed to investigate the pathways leading to effective communication between clinicians and patients. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Systematic review of meaning in life assessment instruments.

BACKGROUND: The construct of "meaning in life" (MiL) has raised the interest of clinicians working in psycho-oncology and end-of-life care. It has become a topic of scientific investigation where diverse assessment approaches have been applied. Aims: We present a comprehensive systematic review of existing MiL assessment instruments. METHODS: Electronic searches of articles published in English peer-reviewed journals were performed in Psycinfo, Medline, Embase and Cinahl. Instruments are appraised with regard to ten measurement properties. RESULTS: In total, 59 nomothetic and idiographic MiL instruments were identified. Most instruments were developed in North America and meet basic psychometric criteria. They assess presence of and search for MiL, crisis and sources of MiL, meaning making, meaningful activity, MiL in the context of illness, breadth, depth, and other structural indicators. These aspects are largely consistent with existing MiL definitions. Nine out of 59 instruments included cancer populations in test development. CONCLUSIONS: This overview of available instruments underscores the complexity of the construct and might assist researchers to select an appropriate instrument for their research needs. Finally, it points to the need for more integrative theorizing and research on MiL. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Seeking good peer review in geomorphology

This paper provides an extended guide to reviewing for ESPL in particular and geomorphology in general. After a brief consideration of both how we choose reviewers and why we hope that reviewers will accept, I consider what makes a fair and constructive review. I note that we aim to publish papers with the rigour (r) necessary to sustain an original and significant contribution (q). I note that judging q is increasingly difficult because of the ever-growing size of the discipline (the Q). This is the sense in which we rarely have a full appreciation of Q, and our reviews are inevitably going to contain some bias. It is this bias that cannot be avoided (cf. Nicholas and Gordon, 2011) and makes the job of ESPL's Editors of critical importance. With this in mind, I identify six elements of a good review: (1) an introductory statement that explains your assessment of your competences in relation to the manuscript (r and Q); (2) a summative view of the originality and significance of the manuscript (q) in relation to Q: (3) a summative view of the methodological rigour of the manuscript (r); (4) identification and justification of any major concerns; (5) identification of any minor issues to be corrected if you think the manuscript merits eventual publication; and (6) note of any typographical or presentation issues to be addressed although this latter activity is also an editorial responsibility. In addition, I note the importance of a constructive review, grounded in what is written in the manuscript, justified where appropriate and avoiding reference to personal views as far as is possible. I conclude with a discussion of whether or not you should sign your review openly and the importance of reviewer confidentiality. Copyright (C) 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.