ArticleBMC medicine2025
Comforting styles of serious illness conversations: a Swiss wide factorial survey study.
Article in BMC medicine, 2025. 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.
- Factors Shaping the Implementation of Serious Illness Conversations: Frontline Clinician Insights.Global qualitative nursing researchArticle
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
Abstract
backgroundSerious illness conversations can cause discomfort in patients, potentially impeding their understanding and decision-making. Identifying ways in which physicians can reduce this discomfort may improve care. This study investigates which physician communication styles and characteristics individuals perceive as comforting in physician-patient serious illness conversations.
methodsWe conducted a nationwide online factorial survey in German, French, and Italian with 1572 Swiss participants from the public (51.4% women) aged 16 to 94. Each participant assessed 5 out of 1000 different vignettes describing a physician informing a cancer patient about their terminal prognosis. We systematically manipulated 11 attributes: physician's years of experience, physician sex, patient sex, patient age, prior relationship to physician, clarity of information, self-disclosure, physician taking time, recommendation, expression of sadness, and continuity of care. Participants evaluated their comfort level with the physician described in the vignettes. Multilevel models with random effects were used to analyze the impact of the dimensions on comfort.
resultsClarity of information (β = 2.13, p < 0.01), taking enough time (β = 2.00, p < 0.01), and continuity of care (β = 1.27, p < 0.01) were the strongest predictors of comfort. A prior physician-patient relationship significantly increased comfort, with a longer relationship being more comforting (p < 0.01). Physician self-disclosure (β = 0.40, p < 0.01) and expression of sadness (β = 0.46, p < 0.01; β = 0.58, p < 0.01) also increased comfort. Recommendations based on experience did not influence comfort but failing to provide reasons for recommendations decreased comfort (β = - 0.24, p < 0.01). Recommendations based on patient preference increased comfort (β = 0.30, p < 0.01). A limitation of this study is that the vignettes describe only fictitious situations and can thus be seen as oversimplifications.
conclusionsTaking time, providing clear information, and ensuring continuity of care are pivotal in enhancing comfort. Also relevant are the expression of sadness, physician self-disclosure, and a prior relationship with the patient.
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.