Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32233831›Full record

ArticlePalliative medicine2020

Managing uncertainty and references to time in prognostic conversations with family members at the end of life: A conversation analytic study.

Rebecca J Anderson, Patrick C Stone, Joseph T S Low, Steven Bloch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Palliative medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Prognostic beliefs in patients with cancer receiving outpatient palliative care.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Rebecca J AndersonMarie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7095-8914
Patrick C StoneMarie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Joseph T S LowMarie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Steven BlochDepartment of Language and Cognition, Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

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

Abstract

backgroundWhen patients are likely to die in the coming hours or days, families often want prognostic information. Prognostic uncertainty and a lack of end-of-life communication training make these conversations challenging.

aimThe objective of this study is to understand how clinicians and the relatives/friends of patients at the very end of life manage uncertainty and reference time in prognostic conversations.

designConversation analysis of audio-recorded conversations between clinicians and the relatives/friends of hospice inpatients. SETTING/

participantsExperienced palliative care clinicians and relatives/friends of imminently dying hospice inpatients. Twenty-three recorded conversations involved prognostic talk and were included in the analysis.

resultsRequests for prognostic information were initiated by families in the majority of conversations. Clinicians responded using categorical time references such as 'days', allowing the provision of prognostic estimates without giving a precise time. Explicit terms such as 'dying' were rare during prognostic discussions. Instead, references to time were understood as relating to prognosis. Relatives displayed their awareness of prognostic uncertainty when requesting prognostic information, providing clinicians with 'permission' to be uncertain. In response, clinicians often stated their uncertainty explicitly, but presented evidence for their prognostic estimates, based on changes to the patient's function previously discussed with the family.

conclusionPrognostic uncertainty was managed collaboratively by clinicians and families. Clinicians were able to provide prognostic estimates while being honest about the related uncertainty, in part because relatives displayed their awareness of uncertainty within their requests. The conversation analytic method identified contributions of both clinicians and families, and identified strategies based on real interactions, which could inform communication training.

Indexed as

FamilyTerminal CareCommunicationDeathHumansPrognosisUncertaintycommunicationconversation analysisfamilyhospicesPalliative careprognosisqualitative researchterminal careuncertainty

Identifiers

PMID32233831
PMCPMC7336362

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.