Talking About Health; Why Health Communication Matters

Old science, new science, and conflicting science about coffee and caffeine–and health

January 12, 2012

Shortly before the holidays, I heard Dr. Oz talking about coffee. He played a game with audience members and emphasized that coarsely ground, light roast coffee made with cold water and NEVER microwaved is best when aiming for the benefits of coffee. Benefits? I thought. Isn’t it interesting how different stories emphasize different results?

On the hunt for the science I went. In 2009, a study reported that 3-5 cups of coffee a day related to a reduced risk –65% less — for dementia and Alzheimer’s disease [http://iospress.metapress.com/content/d885346618q57103/].

I was reminded of my discussion in my book, Talking about health, about old science, new science, conflicting science, and no science. I went online in search of some more science to discuss the coffee and caffeine health benefits. I found the Dr. Oz story: http://www.drozfans.com/dr-ozs-advice/dr-oz-american-roast-coffee-prevents-colon-cancer-coffee-trivia/

An article in 1990 reports findings that the participants who reported drinking more coffee had a higher incidence of colon cancer [http://www.jstor.org/pss/20065645].

A study reported in 1993 found no relationship between more than 34,000 women’s reports of caffeine consumption and breast cancer [http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/138/6/380.short].

In 2007, a study found that 2 cups of black tea or decaf. coffee each day related to reduced risk for ovarian cancer, but regular coffee did not show this relationship. Again, women self-reported their behaviors [ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1525-1438.2006.00773.x/full].

Also in 2007, a study found that drinking 2 cups a day of regular coffee greatly reduced — 43% — risk for liver cancer [http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(07)00568-9/abstract].

What does it all mean? Talking about health means thinking about when a study was conducted, who particpated, and how the research was done. Self-reports are different from clinical studies. I don’t know of any clinical trials where participants are given coffee over time and compared to participants who do not consume coffee. So the research depends on individuals reporting how much coffee they drink. And then clinical reports about their health status provide a picture of what might be making a difference in the health of some compared to others. So when talking about health, don’t lose sight of the meaning of shorthand expressions like, ‘drinking 2 cups of coffee a day reduces your risk for cancer’…

Should we ask our doctors about antibiotics?

138_07301 February 27, 2010

On the ABC evening news this past week, Dr. Besser advised the audience, “Do not ask your doctor for antibiotics.” He provided the evidence to support the claim that asking for antibiotics greatly increases the chances that a doctor will prescribe antibiotics to a patient. He went on to explain that antibiotics are designed to treat bacteria. They do not treat a virus.

I would reframe this conversation. From the doctor’s side, if a patient asks for antibiotics to treat a virus, this seems like a great opportunity for the doctor to explain, “Antibiotics do not work to treat a virus, and your cold is caused by a virus.”

The advantages of this approach include the chance to improve a patient’s health literacy. We can increase our own understanding about health if our doctors take the opportunity to use these teachable moments to ‘teach’ us.

Another advantage is that we feel able to ask a question about our treatment without concern that our doctor might prescribe something unncessary. One likely unintended of Dr. Besser’s advice to not ask for an antibiotic is that it may lead us to wonder, ‘how often would a doctor prescribe something to me just because I asked for it?’

The medical research supports the conclusion that in the U.S., direct-to-consumer advertising leads patients to ask for tests and prescriptions that increases the likelihood that a doctor will order the tests and/or prescribe the medication. So, like in the case of antibiotics, when a patient asks — a doctor is more likely to prescribe.

But is this always a bad thing? We have decades of research to support the conclusion that the time demands on a doctor and the ever growing body of research about available therapies for various conditions = less chance to consider all options in each situation. To participate in our care, we should ask about treatments we may know about. Just asking may prompt the doctor to consider a path that wasn’t the one being considered. Just because it is considered doesn’t mean it should be selected. Sometimes, however, the doctor might judge it to be a ‘good idea.’

If each time a patient asks a doctor for treatment that is not a good match to the health condition, a doctor feels compelled to prescribe the treatment, it will lead to further waste in the health care system. We know that a doctor is not likely to follow the path a patient suggests if the doctor believes it will be harmful…at least, in the short term. But with antiobiotics as a case to illustrate, we want our doctors to think about our well-being in the long term. And if our request doesn’t make sense, take a minute to tell us why it doesn’t.

This approach means that doctors and patients can keep talking, and that their communication might benefit health in the short term and the long term, and the cost of health care as well.

Do we want doctors to tell us if we have advanced cancer?

117_1755 February 18, 2010

In 2002, Hisako Kakai published an article in the journal, Health Communication, about preferences for disclosure of a cancer diagnosis. Dr. Kakai indicates that in Japan, a direct communication style is usually preferred when it comes to disclosing one’s personal diagnosis of cancer. In other words, people want to be told they have cancer. However, an indirect communication style with no disclosure, or an ambiguous disclosure to the patient was preferred for a family member. The article raises many interesting communication and ethical issues.

A serious diagnosis raises the question, ‘how do we deal with uncertainty?’ Communication plays a big role. It points to the reality that we often are not good with dealing with uncertainty. We frame uncertainty as ‘bad’ and let uncertainty overtake everything good that might be going on in our lives. This relates to how we communicate about a serious health condition. It also relates to how we communicate about the economy, about security, and about an endless number of issues that equal being — human.

The message communicated often to us is, ‘work hard and it will pay off’ — with payoff crossing a spectrum from health, relationships, and wealth. The message, ‘life is uncertain. Work hard at your relationships and school and work, and take satisfaction in the fact that you worked hard’ — is communicated less often, if at all. And it shows up in our inability to deal with uncertainty, our obsession with …reducing the uncertainty.

Should the goal in communicating be to reduce uncertainty? When it comes to our health, that may not always be the best aim. If we can learn to manage the uncertainty of a diagnosis, we may be better able to live our lifes as someone living with cancer or heart disease or diabetes. If we make the diagnosis a more integral part of our being and identity, we may communicate in ways that define us to others as being disabled rather than living with a disability, diabetic rather than managing life while living with diabetes, and so on.

Even more surprising, when we focus on managing our uncertainty as a part of life, we may even discover that there are times when we communicate to increase uncertainty. Instead of being certain that our future, our health, our well-being are uncertain and that is a bad thing, we can use uncertainty as a way to promote hope. In our own research, Ben Cairns and I found that this was particularly important for people who have newly experienced spinal cord injuries and their family members. ‘Will she walk again? Will he be able to do things for himself? Can she sit up on her own? Can he feed himself?’ Not knowing offers people living with the injury and their families and friends the hope that they might do these things again.

Communicating to increase uncertainty about a diagnosis thus gives some time to adapt to a diagnosis. And that may be the best and more ethical way to communicate about an advanced cancer diagnosis as well. Not telling so that a patient does not know a true diagnosis may seem to offer a way to manage a serious diagnosis and thus to reduce uncertainty. Telling and acknowledging that the diagnosis is serious, even very serious, but that predicting exactly when the end-of-life will happen is uncertain may give some time to adapt to the diagnosis and some hope that important things that have not been said can be…

…a lesson in Dr. Maureen Keeley’s award-winning book, Final Conversations that has been shown to be so important for those who know that they are dying and the loved ones they will leave behind.

Why don’t our doctors recommend ‘it’?

117_1749 February 8, 2010

The fourth chapter of my book, ‘Talking about health…why communication matters,’ provides some answers to the question, ‘Why don’t we get care?’ The discussion goes beyond the vital limitation–we don’t have access–to consider what happens when we do have access and we still don’t get health care.

The first topic discussed in response to the question, ‘why don’t we get care’ is: our doctors don’t recommend it. There exist several answers to the question, ‘Why don’t our doctors recommend it?’

One reason our doctors don’t recommend a treatment that we might expect reflects the reality that no treatment yet exists. The media story bringing to our attention a scientific discovery published in a leading journal such as the Journal of the American Medical Association or Lancet or the New England Journal of Medicine may set our expectation that the discovery translates to new treatment. It is a long journey between scientific discovery and health care.

The National Institutes of Health–which includes the National Cancer Institute, the National Eye Institute, the National Heart, Lung, & Blood Institute, and others [see http://www.nih.gov/icd/index.html ] emphasizes the importance of translating discoveries to benefits for the people. But the process follows a series of steps. So, in short, our doctor cannot recommend what is not yet available. Still, it never hurts to ask in case there might be some clinical trials going on in efforts to develop treatment based on the new science. And, it can’t hurt to do a bit of sleuthing of our own on the internet to see whether the media story relates to the possibility for new treatment.

Other reasons that doctors may not recommend a treatment have to do with such realities as: time slips away during an appointment and it just didn’t get brought up. Or, the doctor planned to talk with you about a treatment but–forgot. Perhaps your doctor even said in your last appointment that she would talk with you about some other options for care at the next appointment, but then doesn’t. In all of these cases, if it is important to you, bring it up. These are ways that communication can indeed matter when talking about health.