ArticleBMC medical education2026
Evaluating an intervention for healthcare professionals to facilitate family-centred conversations when an adult patient has a serious illness.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
backgroundMany patients diagnosed with a serious illness have significant relationships with children (< 18 years old). While effective communication about an adult's illness has psychological benefits for children, many families are uncertain about how to approach this topic. Patients frequently seek guidance from healthcare professionals, but clinicians often report a lack of knowledge, skills, and confidence to initiate such conversations. Consequently these discussions are often avoided. A novel, brief intervention has been created to overcome these well-documented barriers. This multimethod study aimed to evaluate the acceptability, usefulness and effectiveness of an intervention for healthcare professionals.
methodsVolunteer sampling was used to identify and recruit healthcare professionals working with adult patients who have a serious illness. Participants completed an online survey regarding their current clinical practice, knowledge, skills and confidence about family-centred conversations before immediately accessing the intervention. Participants were invited to complete the same survey after accessing the intervention and give brief feedback about its usefulness. A subset of participants were contacted three months after their engagement with the intervention to participate in an online, individual interview. Non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were conducted to evaluate differences between pre-post survey scores. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsTwo hundred and fifty-five healthcare professionals completed the survey pre-post intervention. Quantitative responses indicated that the intervention had significantly increased participants' knowledge, skills and confidence to initiate family-centred conversations. Over 90% reported that the intervention was relevant to their practice and 88% agreed they would recommend it to a colleague. Qualitative results (n=16) are discussed under three themes 1) perceptions of the intervention 2) perceived impact of the intervention on clinical practice 3) opportunities and challenges for family-centred conversations in routine practice. Participants commented favourably on the tone, format and content, with many describing a change in their practice.
conclusionsHealthcare professionals reported an increase in their knowledge, skills and confidence to initiate family-centred conversations after engaging with the intervention. Further evaluation is required to assess the sustainability of reported behaviour-change by healthcare professionals and its impact on patient and family outcomes.
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.