Interventions to Improve the Breaking of Bad or Difficult News by Physicians, Medical Students, and Interns/Residents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose To assess the effectiveness of news delivery interventions to improve observer-rated skills, physician confidence, and patient-reported depression/anxiety. Method MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from inception to September 5, 2016 (updated February 2017). Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, and controlled before–after studies of interventions to improve the communication of bad or difficult news by physicians, medical students, and residents/interns. The EPOC risk of bias tool was used to conduct a risk of bias assessment. Main and secondary meta-analyses examined the effectiveness of the identified interventions for improving observer-rated news delivery skills and improving physician confidence in delivering news and patient-reported depression/anxiety, respectively. Results Seventeen studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, including 19 independent comparisons on 1,322 participants and 9 independent comparisons on 985 participants for the main and secondary (physician confidence) analyses (mean [SD] age = 35 [7] years; 46% male), respectively. Interventions were associated with large, significant improvements in observer-rated news delivery skills (19 comparisons: standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.74; 95% CI = 0.47–1.01) and moderate, significant improvements in physician confidence (9 comparisons: SMD = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.26–0.95). One study reported intervention effects on patient-reported depression/anxiety. The risk of bias findings did not influence the significance of the results. Conclusions Interventions are effective for improving news delivery and physician confidence. Further research is needed to test the impact of interventions on patient outcomes and determine optimal components and length.