ArticleBMJ open2024
Helping patients prepare their dependent children for parental death: mixed-methods evaluation of a codeveloped training programme for palliative and allied healthcare professionals in the UK.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate how the codesigned training programme, 'No conversation too tough', can help cancer, palliative and wider healthcare professionals support patients to communicate with their dependent children when a parent is dying. We examined perceptions of learning provided by the training, its contribution to confidence in communicating with families when a parent is dying, and subjective experience of, and reactions to, the training. We also explored potential changes in practice behaviours.
designPre-post, convergent, parallel, mixed-methods study. Motivations for practice change were measured quantitatively, and qualitatively through semi-structured interviews. Non-parametric analysis was conducted for self-efficacy and outcome expectancy measures; descriptive statistics examined perceptions of usefulness; intentions to use learning in practice and reactions to the training. Semi-structured interviews examined motivations and perceptions of learning in depth. A 6-week, practice log recorded immediate practice effects and reflections.
setting1-day training delivered 3 times, total delegates 36: online December 2021, February 2022, face-to-face March 2022. Questionnaires delivered correspondingly in online or paper formats, semi-structured interviews online.
participantsPre-post: palliative care professionals (n=14/12), acute cancer clinical nurse specialists (n=16/11), other healthcare professionals (n=5/5).
resultsPositive changes were observed in self-efficacy (17 of 19 dimensions p<0.003) and outcome expectancies (3 of 14 beliefs p<0.036). Perceptions of usefulness and intentions to use learning in practice mean scores were 82-94 (scales 0=low to 100=high). There was high affirmation for sharing learning and influencing change in the workplace and wider practice. Content, style and delivery were positively endorsed. Further elements to be included in the training were identified.
conclusionsThe training programme has the potential to effect change in practice behaviours. A large-scale study will evaluate the roll-out of the training delivered to individual professionals and whole teams across the UK. It will provide longer-term feedback to understand practice behaviour and mediators of change across professional roles.
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.