Abstract：
To explore whether family-centered communication impacts decisions and optimizes patient-companion-provider consultations.
A parallel, two-arm randomized controlled trial was conducted with 108 participants acting as patients with inflammatory arthritis or companions. Pairs attended a mock consultation where a physician explained the change from a bio-originator to a biosimilar using family-centered or patient-only communication. Participants reported their willingness to transition, risk perceptions, understanding and social support, and completed various scales including the Patient Perception Scale. Interviews helped understand perceptions towards the consultation.
Family-centered communication did not impact willingness to change or cognitive risk perceptions compared to patient-only communication. However, it improved emotional risk perceptions (p = 0.047, Cohen\'s d=.55) and satisfaction with communication (p = 0.015, Cohen\'s d=.71). Feeling the explanation was reassuring was associated with less worry (p = 0.004). Receiving emotional support (p = 0.014) and companions asking fewer questions (p = 0.046) were associated with higher recall. The intervention improved companion involvement (p < 0.001, Cohen\'s d= 1.23) and support (p = 0.002, Cohen\'s d=.86). Interviews showed that encouraging questions, inclusive body language, and acknowledging companions facilitated involvement.
Family-centered communication augments patient-companion-provider encounters but does not influence willingness to change treatment.
Practitioners can use family-centered communication when discussing biosimilars but should provide reassurance, encourage emotional support, and summarize key points to improve understanding.
A parallel, two-arm randomized controlled trial was conducted with 108 participants acting as patients with inflammatory arthritis or companions. Pairs attended a mock consultation where a physician explained the change from a bio-originator to a biosimilar using family-centered or patient-only communication. Participants reported their willingness to transition, risk perceptions, understanding and social support, and completed various scales including the Patient Perception Scale. Interviews helped understand perceptions towards the consultation.
Family-centered communication did not impact willingness to change or cognitive risk perceptions compared to patient-only communication. However, it improved emotional risk perceptions (p = 0.047, Cohen\'s d=.55) and satisfaction with communication (p = 0.015, Cohen\'s d=.71). Feeling the explanation was reassuring was associated with less worry (p = 0.004). Receiving emotional support (p = 0.014) and companions asking fewer questions (p = 0.046) were associated with higher recall. The intervention improved companion involvement (p < 0.001, Cohen\'s d= 1.23) and support (p = 0.002, Cohen\'s d=.86). Interviews showed that encouraging questions, inclusive body language, and acknowledging companions facilitated involvement.
Family-centered communication augments patient-companion-provider encounters but does not influence willingness to change treatment.
Practitioners can use family-centered communication when discussing biosimilars but should provide reassurance, encourage emotional support, and summarize key points to improve understanding.
摘要：
探索以家庭为中心的沟通是否会影响决策并优化患者-伴侣-提供者的咨询。
A平行线，我们进行了双臂随机对照试验,纳入了108例作为炎性关节炎患者或患者同伴的参与者.一对参加了模拟咨询，医生使用以家庭为中心或仅患者的交流来解释从生物起源到生物仿制药的变化。参与者报告了他们过渡的意愿，风险认知，理解和社会支持，并完成了各种量表，包括患者感知量表。访谈有助于了解对咨询的看法。
与仅患者沟通相比，以家庭为中心的沟通不会影响改变意愿或认知风险观念。然而,它改善了情绪风险感知(p=0.047，科恩的d=.55)和沟通满意度(p=0.015，科恩的d=.71)。感觉解释令人放心与减少担忧有关（p=0.004）。接受情感支持（p=0.014）和同伴提出较少问题（p=0.046）与较高的召回率相关。干预改善了同伴参与（p<0.001，科恩的d=1.23）和支持（p=0.002，科恩的d=0.86）。采访表明，令人鼓舞的问题，包容的肢体语言，承认同伴促进了参与。
以家庭为中心的沟通增加了患者-伴侣-提供者的接触，但不影响改变治疗的意愿。
从业者在讨论生物仿制药时可以使用以家庭为中心的沟通，但应该提供保证，鼓励情感支持，并总结要点以增进理解。
A平行线，我们进行了双臂随机对照试验,纳入了108例作为炎性关节炎患者或患者同伴的参与者.一对参加了模拟咨询，医生使用以家庭为中心或仅患者的交流来解释从生物起源到生物仿制药的变化。参与者报告了他们过渡的意愿，风险认知，理解和社会支持，并完成了各种量表，包括患者感知量表。访谈有助于了解对咨询的看法。
与仅患者沟通相比，以家庭为中心的沟通不会影响改变意愿或认知风险观念。然而,它改善了情绪风险感知(p=0.047，科恩的d=.55)和沟通满意度(p=0.015，科恩的d=.71)。感觉解释令人放心与减少担忧有关（p=0.004）。接受情感支持（p=0.014）和同伴提出较少问题（p=0.046）与较高的召回率相关。干预改善了同伴参与（p<0.001，科恩的d=1.23）和支持（p=0.002，科恩的d=0.86）。采访表明，令人鼓舞的问题，包容的肢体语言，承认同伴促进了参与。
以家庭为中心的沟通增加了患者-伴侣-提供者的接触，但不影响改变治疗的意愿。
从业者在讨论生物仿制药时可以使用以家庭为中心的沟通，但应该提供保证，鼓励情感支持，并总结要点以增进理解。
