ArticleBMC medicine2026
Factors impacting the delivery of contextualized care in serious illness: a focus group study with healthcare professionals.
Article in BMC medicine, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs the number and complexity of patients living with serious illness continue to rise, delivering care that is both effective and responsive to individual life contexts has become increasingly important. Despite its potential benefits, the implementation of contextualized care in the management of serious illness remains limited and poorly understood. To address this gap, this study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators influencing the delivery of contextualized care for patients with serious illness, as perceived by healthcare professionals (HCPs), and to generate recommendations for improving its implementation.
methodsThree focus groups were conducted with 20 HCPs from multiple disciplines and hospital settings in the Netherlands, all involved in the care of patients with serious illness. Discussions were guided and analysed using a directed content analysis informed by the COM-B model (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour) combined with the Theoretical Domains Framework. Factors were mapped to intervention functions from the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) to provide recommendations.
resultsNine factors influencing contextualized care were identified across COM-B components. Capability-related factors included skills and knowledge to engage with the relevant patient context and the ability to distinguish between general and clinically relevant context. Opportunity-related factors included environmental conditions, fragmented information systems, systemic incentives misaligned with contextual care, a lack of shared team norms, collaboration challenges, and the perceived emotional complexity of contextual conversations in the palliative phase. Motivation-related factors included strong intrinsic commitment to person-centred care and awareness of the consequences of overlooking context for patients, HCPs, and the overall system. Most barriers were concentrated in the Opportunity component, with environmental and team-level constraints often outweighing individual motivation and basic skills.
conclusionsDelivering contextualized care for patients with serious illness is not primarily limited by individual willingness or basic capability but by environmental and systemic feasibility. Sustainable implementation requires multilevel strategies targeting team culture, interprofessional collaboration, and a supportive infrastructure. Moving from individual intent to shared norms may improve both patient outcomes and resource efficiency. Key steps include continuous education, embedding contextual care in team culture, adapting workflows and documentation, and integrating contextualization into quality measures and incentives.
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.