ArticlePloS one2024
Supporting health and social care professionals in serious illness conversations: Development, validation, and preliminary evaluation of an educational booklet.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Staff's Knowledge and Self-Confidence in Difficult Communication: Evaluation of a Short Experiential-Based Training Program.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Serious illness conversations aim to align the care process with the goals and preferences of adult patients suffering from any advanced disease. They represent a challenge for healthcare professionals and require specific skills. Conversation guides consistent with task-centered instructional strategies may be particularly helpful to improve the quality of communication. This study aims to develop, validate, and preliminarily evaluate an educational booklet to support Italian social and healthcare professionals in serious illness conversations. A three-step approach, including development, validation, and evaluation, was followed. A co-creation process with meaningful stakeholders led to the development of the booklet, validated by 15 experts on clarity, completeness, coherence, and relevance. It underwent testing on readability (Gulpease index, 0 = lowest-100 = maximum) and design (Baker Able Leaflet Design criteria, 0 = worst to 32 = best). Twenty-two professionals with different scope of practice and care settings evaluated acceptability (acceptable if score ≥30), usefulness, feasibility to use (1 = not at all to 10 = extremely), and perceived acquired knowledge (1 = not at all to 5 = extremely). After four rounds of adjustments, the booklet scored 97% for relevance, 60 for readability, and 25/32 for design. In all, 18 (81.8%), 19 (86.4%) and 17 (77.3%) professionals deemed the booklet acceptable, moderate to highly useful, and feasible to use, respectively; 18/22 perceived gain in knowledge and all would recommend it to colleagues. The booklet has good readability, excellent design, high content validity, and a high degree of perceived usefulness and acquired knowledge. The booklet is tailored to users' priorities, mirrors their most frequent daily practice challenges, and offers 1-minute, 2-minute and 5-minute solutions for each scenario. The co-creation process ensured the development of an educational resource that could be useful regardless of the scope of practice and the care setting to support professionals in serious illness conversations.
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.