Goelz 2009
| Methods | RCT conducted from June 2007 ‐ Feb 2009. | |
| Participants | 41 doctors (39 from Department of Haematology/Oncology, one from Gynaecology, one from Surgery). | |
| Interventions | CST in the form of COM‐ON‐p(COMmunication challenges in ONcology related to the transition to palliative care training program), including a one hour pre‐assessment with SPs, an 11‐hour training course (main focus practice with SPs using cases of participants) plus a half‐hour individual coaching session two weeks later. The courses were run in groups of 8/9 participants by two experienced facilitators. | |
| Outcomes | HCP (Doctors') communication skills in video‐recorded SP consultations pre‐intervention and five weeks post‐intervention using COM‐ON‐checklist included:
|
|
| Notes | The average overall estimate of effect favoured the intervention group (P=0.0007). There was a statistically significant difference between intervention and control group in all sections in favour of the intervention group including: specific palliative communication skills (P<0.0026); general communication skills (P<0.0078); and involvement of significant others (P<0.0.0051). | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Computer‐generated randomisation to two groups in blocks of 8 by an 'external statistician'. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Allocation by fax. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Outcome assessors blinded to group allocation. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | 100% follow‐up. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All pre‐specified outcomes reported. |
| Other bias | High risk | Doctors in the intervention group had significantly more professional (P = 0.02) experience compared with those in the control group. |