ArticlePalliative care and social practice2026
What makes serious illness conversations acceptable? A mixed-methods study of patient and caregiver experiences in oncology and cardiology.
Article in Palliative care and social practice, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to identify how contextual, dispositional, and relational factors intersect to shape the participant experience of serious illness conversations (SICs) while exploring the nuances of appraisal across different clinical specialties. Methods: A convergent parallel mixed-methods study was conducted as part of a Serious Illness Care Programme pilot at two Singaporean tertiary centres. Participants with advanced cancer or heart failure were recruited from oncology, cardiology, and palliative medicine clinics. We conducted semi-structured interviews and a Patient Experience Survey (PES) that explored participants views on their communication experience. .Qualitative data were analysed via a case-based thematic approach. Findings were summarized by coders into experience categories of "Good," "Moderate," or "Poor." Quantitative comparisons between patient-reported PES scores and coder-assigned ratings were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test. Results: Forty participants were recruited (33 patients, 7 caregivers), with 32 (26 patients, 6 caregivers) completing interviews, and 24 patients completing the PES. Among interviewed patients, 19 had advanced cancer and 7 had heart failure. While 96% of patients rated their SICs as "mostly" or "extremely" worthwhile in the PES, qualitative analysis revealed a complex landscape of acceptance, ambivalence, and distress. Discrepancies between patient-reported and coder-assigned ratings indicated that participants appraised encounters as "Worthwhile" even when experiencing significant distress. Four themes were identified as primary influences on participant experience: subjective illness understandings, clinician conversational practices, personal readiness, and relational dynamics. The analysis suggests that trust established through longitudinal therapeutic relationships functioned as a buffer against negative appraisals, offer a possible explanation for why "Worthwhile" scores remained largely experience-invariant. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that SIC acceptability is a dynamic appraisal refracted through subjective illness understandings and relational contexts. Future research should investigate specific communicative mechanisms that foster affective readiness and rapport, ensuring that serious illness communication aligns with, rather than disrupts, patient and caregiver expectations of healthcare communication.
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.