Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31184529›Full record

SynthesisPalliative medicine2019

Communication between healthcare professionals and relatives of patients approaching the end-of-life: A systematic review of qualitative evidence.

Rebecca J Anderson, Steven Bloch, Megan Armstrong, Patrick C Stone, Joseph Ts Low

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Palliative medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

88 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Guideline
  9. Quality of life of Family Health Strategy professionals: a systematic review.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina
    Pooled it
  10. Evaluation of a Novel Hospice-Specific Patient Decision Aid.The American journal of hospice & palliative care · 2024
    Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

28 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Rebecca J Anderson1 Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7095-8914
Steven Bloch2 Department of Language and Cognition, Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Megan Armstrong1 Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6773-9393
Patrick C Stone1 Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Joseph Ts Low1 Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Marie Curie MCCC-FCH-18-UMarie Curie MCCC-FCO-11-UMarie Curie MCCC-FPO-16-U
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEffective communication between healthcare professionals and relatives of patients approaching the end-of-life is vital to ensure patients have a 'good death'. To improve communication, it is important to first identify how this is currently being accomplished.

aimTo review qualitative evidence concerning characteristics of communication about prognosis and end-of-life care between healthcare professionals and relatives of patients approaching the end-of-life.

designQualitative systematic review (PROSPERO registration CRD42017065560) using thematic synthesis. Peer-reviewed, English language articles exploring the content of conversations and how participants communicated were included. No date restrictions were applied. Quality of included studies was appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. DATA SOURCES: An electronic database search of CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE was performed.

resultsThirty-one papers were included. Seven themes were identified: highlighting deterioration; involvement in decision-making, post-decision interactional work, tailoring, honesty and clarity, specific techniques for information delivery and roles of different healthcare professionals. Varied levels of family involvement in decision-making were reported. Healthcare professionals used strategies to aid understanding and collaborative decision-making, such as highlighting the patient's deterioration, referring to patient wishes and tailoring information delivery. Doctors were regarded as responsible for discussing prognosis and decision-making, and nurses for providing individualized care.

conclusionFindings suggest training could provide healthcare professionals with these strategies to improve communication. Interventions such as question prompt lists could help relatives overcome barriers to involvement in decision-making. Further research is needed to understand communication with relatives in different settings and with different healthcare professionals.

Indexed as

CommunicationHealth PersonnelProfessional-Family RelationsTerminal CareHumansQualitative ResearchcaregiversCommunicationfamilypalliative carequalitative researchterminal care

Identifiers

PMID31184529
PMCPMC6691601

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.