ArticleBMC palliative care2026
Assessing the feasibility of use and content validity of ICECAP-CPM with bereaved family members of young people who died from serious illness: a UK think-aloud study.
Article in BMC palliative care, 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
Abstract
backgroundThe ICECAP-Close Person Measure (CPM) is a self-complete measure developed for use in economic evaluation to capture capability outcomes for those close to individuals at the end of life. Its appropriateness for use with close persons of young people, aged 14–25, at the end of life has not yet been assessed. An initial assessment of its use with bereaved family members of young people with serious illness was undertaken.
methodsTo assess feasibility of use and content validity of the measure, bereaved participants were asked to ‘think aloud’ when completing the ICECAP-CPM. Interview transcripts were examined for errors in comprehension, retrieval, judgement and response by four raters. Qualitative data explored reasons for errors during measure completion and participants’ views about the measure.
resultsNine cognitive interviews were undertaken with parents (five) and siblings (four) of young people who had died. The measure appeared to be understood by the majority of participants, but there were errors in completion (18%) and struggles (4%). Participants suggested the measure was relevant to their experience and covered broad areas important to them.
conclusionsAlthough completion errors were identified, the measure appears relevant for use with bereaved family members of young people with serious illness.
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.