SynthesisBMJ open2026
Improving communication of prognostic uncertainty in advanced illness: a realist review.
Synthesis in BMJ 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPrognostic uncertainty is common in advanced illness, driven by multimorbidity, treatment complexities and unpredictable disease trajectories. When inadequately acknowledged or discussed, it can lead to patient and family distress and inhibit decision-making.We aimed to build a programme theory of how, why and for whom communication of prognostic uncertainty 'works' (or not) in advanced illness and palliative care contexts.
designRealist systematic review, reported according to RAMESES criteria. DATA SOURCES: Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, SCI via Web of Science, PsycINFO, SSCI and multiple grey literature sources. We included evidence examining communication of prognostic uncertainty in adults with advanced illnesses. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We coded papers qualitatively to identify Context-Mechanism-Outcome Configurations (CMOCs) relevant to prognostic uncertainty communication. Supported by clinical and lay stakeholder consultation, we refined these into a programme theory.
resultsFrom 4634 search results, we included 205 studies with 46 579 participants across 11 countries. The final programme theory identified contexts of communication: socio-cultural norms and values, patient and family preferences, communication models and interventions, clinician uncertainty tolerance, training and experience. Mechanisms of communication were mediated by the care relationship, the timing and initiation of discussion, the content of communication and explicit versus implicit communication. Relevant outcomes were emotions, hope, distress, decision making and care planning. There was no single model of effective communication as this varied based on individual characteristics and preferences, but openness was usually viewed positively.
conclusionThis programme theory provides a new understanding of the contexts and mechanisms, such as explicitness of discussion, that support effective communication of prognostic uncertainty across advanced illness contexts to reduce distress and aid decision making. Sociocultural factors are important, but they have the most limited supporting evidence, especially in low- and middle-income countries. The model presented here may support professionals in individualised and compassionate communication of prognostic uncertainty.
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.