Having a communication plan

Last week my team experienced a bit of a communication meltdown, which is only somewhat ironic considering we are communication researchers. So after some triage and promises to give each other "the benefit of the doubt," my thoughts now turn to how we could have better planned for communication disaster.

Those outside the field of communication sometimes dismiss it because they think that communication just occurs naturally, like breathing. But communication scholars and teachers are fond of saying that communication doesn't just happen. Communication is, among other things, a skill. If it is a skill, it is something that can be refined and improved with practice, and something that can be planned for, should things go wrong. The key is awareness and intentionality. Know how communication can go wrong on your particular team and think about what you will do if it does. Does your team respond better to discussions as a group or individual conversations? Do they respond to writing or face-to-face interactions? Thinking about your team's communication style before blow-ups occur will better equip you to address problems as they come up and even catch little problems before they become big meltdowns.

Communication theory in the informed consent process

I learned so much from the ACRP Global Conference in Tampa last month that I am already making plans for what I want to present at next year's conference (and the fact that ACRP 2011 is in Seattle is extra motivation). I realized that I bring a particular skill set to the clinical research educational setting: my background in communication theory. I was not the only presenter who discussed communication at the ACRP 2010 conference. Several other speakers focused more on the soft communication skills, but I saw a need for a discussion of how communication theory can inform the most important conversation that takes place in the research encounter: the informed consent.

One of the theories I am going to integrate into my presentation next year is Uses and Gratifications Theory. The theory is usually used in studies of people's media use and habits, but I believe it is an important consideration when having an informed consent conversation. It is tempting for research staff to think of potential research participants as empty vessels waiting to be filled with information. But every potential participant brings their own agenda to the conversation and will seek, find and attend to selected information. It is a valuable piece of information to consider when informing potential participants about participating in a particular study. I look forward to the opportunity to bring communication theory into the research professionals conversation.

The other revolution started by "The Pill"

This article is a week old, but I still wanted to point it out. Last week was the 50th anniversary of FDA approval of the birth control pill. Approval of the birth control pill is credited being one of the events that led to the "sexual revolution." But as this article points out, the approval of the pill started another revolution, a revolution at the FDA. At the time of the pill's approval, the FDA started to take a strong role in post-market surveillance, that is, continued observation and research of drugs after they have been approved. With the pill, we also saw the beginning of the FDA's direct communication with patients, rather than communication from the FDA to patients via physicians. The approval of the pill also followed the expansion of the process of clinical trials to show safety and efficacy of a drug, procedures that are now commonplace. It's an interesting piece of research history and shows how we came to the regulations researchers now face today.

A message that resonates

I had the opportunity to present a poster and brief presentation on communication in multi-disciplinary research teams both at the Association of Clinical Research Professionals Global Conference in Tampa and at my local Southern Wisconsin ACRP chapter. I am passionate about communication education and count it a privilege to be able to share my knowledge with my clinical research colleagues.

The thing that is most encouraging to me is that this message of improving communication skills within the context of research teams is resonating with research professionals. The research professionals I met understand the importance of communication to effective team functioning. They have learned that communication is a skill that can be improved and it is encouraging that these professionals are seeking to improve their communication skills. I hope to continue to teach and encourage my clinical research colleagues about the importance of effective communication in the team work environment.

Learning to communicate in multi-disciplinary teams

I am privileged to be presenting at the Association of Clinical Research Professionals Global Conference later this week. I will be presenting a poster and a brief presentation about a topic that combines my interest, experience and expertise in the fields of communication research and clinical research: communication in multi-disciplinary research teams.

Multi-disciplinary research teams offer many advantages, the most compelling of which is having a broad range of perspectives to bring new and innovative ideas to the research table. But each of us educated in a specific discipline are taught to approach questions and problems in a certain way. When required to work with people who are educated another way, potential conflicts arise. Understanding the potential pitfalls to working with multi-disciplinary teams is the first step to maximizing the benefits of these teams. Team leaders need to work to create a supportive environment, where all members feel safe to share new and innovative ideas that may be unfamiliar to the rest of the group. Ongoing conversations about roles in the team, as well as making a conscious effort to learn from your teammates, will head off some of the potential misunderstandings.

The benefits of multi-disciplinary teams far outweigh the potential pitfalls, but being prepared for the pitfalls makes success all the more likely.

The problems patients have with reporting symptoms

The New York Times reported on a New England Journal of Medicine article about how patient-reported data about drug side effects can be a tremendous source of information. But physicians and patients often have trouble discussing potential side effects because of limited time in consultations and limited understanding of what side effects and their causes may be.

So we have a great potential source of data about emerging drugs. But we have a communication gap in getting that information from patients to doctors to researchers. Many hope that opening new lines of communication for patients to report symptoms they are unsure about to others may help facilitate the reporting process. Information coming directly from patients will increase understanding of new and emerging drugs and technologies. And giving patients another means of expressing their concerns helps the patients be heard as they pursue their own health care.

Picturing life after cancer

The New York Times is working on a compelling project to collect stories and pictures of cancer patients. Cancer survivors are encouraged to "picture life after cancer" by submitting photos and thoughts about what life means after cancer. You can see the first of the submissions here.