Trial reportJAMA network open2026
Navigating Prognostic Dialogue During Serious Illness Conversations.
Trial report in JAMA network open, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Double awareness, the ability to live meaningfully while preparing for the end of life, is central to serious illness conversations. In hematology, prognostic uncertainty and expectations of novel therapies often delay prognostic dialogue, limiting opportunities to cultivate double awareness in patients and caregivers. Objective: To explore how patients, caregivers, and hematology clinicians trained in serious illness conversations navigate prognostic dialogue and how this may facilitate double awareness. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study analyzed audio-recorded transcripts of serious illness conversations conducted between November 1, 2022, and January 31, 2025, among patients, caregivers, and clinicians treating hematologic malignant neoplasms in the intervention arm of a nationwide, Danish cluster randomized trial (ACT study; planned follow-up of 18 months), using reflexive thematic analysis. Twenty-five of seventy-five eligible audio recordings were selected for variation in patient demographics (age, sex, and diagnosis), caregiver relationship, treating clinicians, and perceived goals of treatment among patients with limited treatment options from 5 Danish hematology departments. Exposures: The Danish Serious Illness Care Program includes clinician training, communication tools, preparatory materials, documentation, and scheduled conversation slots. Main Outcomes and Measures: Communicative dynamics of how patients, caregivers, and clinicians navigate prognostic dialogue in serious illness conversations in hematology. Results: A total of 25 patient-caregiver dyads (50 individuals; median [IQR] patient age, 73 [67-79] years; 11 [44%] female and 14 [56%] male patients; median [IQR] caregiver age, 66 [52-72] years; 20 [80%] female and 5 [20%] male caregivers) and 16 physician-nurse teams (32 clinicians; median [IQR] physician age, 46 [41-48] years; 11 [69%] female and 5 [31%] male; median [IQR] nurse age, 38 [32-46] years; 16 [100%] female) were studied. Patients had multiple myeloma (8 [32%]), lymphoma (8 [32%]), myelodysplastic syndrome (6 [24%]), or acute leukemia (3 [12%]). A total of 18 (72%) were enrolled during treatment of relapsed disease. Preparatory materials and clinicians' conversation opening laid the foundation for prognostic dialogue. Clinicians followed patients' verbal and emotional cues of readiness or hesitation for prognostic dialogue and adjusted the depth and timing of prognostic information accordingly. Prognostic uncertainty was used to acknowledge both realistic concerns and hopes. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study of serious illness conversations among patients with hematologic malignant neoplasms, their caregivers, and clinicians, clinicians' attentiveness to patients' and caregivers' oscillating readiness enabled prognostic dialogue. Prognostic uncertainty served as a constructive element and resource rather than a barrier, supporting patients' preparation for the end of life while continuing to live meaningfully.
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.