ArticleBMJ open2021
Instruments for assessing health professionals' skills in breaking bad news: protocol for a systematic review of measurement properties.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHealth professionals are often involved in the process of breaking bad news (BBN), which remains a difficult challenge, as it requires not only theoretical knowledge, but also the development of humanistic, emotional and communication skills. Therefore, optimal BBN assessment is essential. In this regard, sound measurement instruments are needed to evaluate BBN properly in research, teaching and clinical settings. Several instruments have been designed and validated to assess BBN. In this context, choosing the most appropriate instrument for assessing health professionals' skills in BBN is essential. The aims of this systematic review are to: (1) identify all the instruments used for assessing health professionals' skills in BBN; and (2) critically appraise their measurement properties.
methodsA systematic review will be undertaken according to the most up-to-date COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments' (COSMIN) methodology. The protocol of this systematic review was developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The search strategy will be performed following the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies. The search strategy will be conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, SciELO and Open Grey. Two review authors will independently appraise the full-text articles according to the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Quality ratings and evidence synthesis will be performed using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not necessary for systematic review protocols. The results will be disseminated by publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant conference. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020207586.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.