Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42732293›Full record

ArticlePalliative care and social practice2026

Investigating effect versus impact in a participatory action research project: Building end-of-life communication competence in residential care facilities for older people.

Åsa Mikaelsson, Carol Tishelman, Kerrie Noonan, Leo Kowalski, Max Kleijberg, Therese Johansson, Terese Stenfors, Lars E Eriksson, Ida Goliath

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Åsa MikaelssonDepartment of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1435-1293
Carol TishelmanDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management, and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4161-0342
Kerrie NoonanWestern NSW Local Health District, Dubbo, NSW, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5349-5041
Leo KowalskiDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management, and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Max KleijbergDepartment of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4036-707X
Therese JohanssonDepartment of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6101-5925
Terese StenforsDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management, and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0854-8631
Lars E ErikssonDepartment of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5121-5325
Ida GoliathDepartment of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8245-5479

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Active involvement of residents, family members and staff in proactive end-of-life conversations remains uncommon in residential care facilities for older people, although these are common settings for the end-of-life. This study derives from a Participatory Action Research project with an intervention aimed at developing Death Literacy among residential care staff, to promote implementation of proactive end-of-life conversations. Objectives: This article has a two-fold aim: (1) to investigate effects and forms of impact derived from this project intending to improve Death Literacy, and (2) to discuss challenges in this investigation and contribute to critical debate and further inform the use and development of the Death Literacy concept and related index (DLI). Methods: We combined quantitative analysis of pre-post intervention DLI survey data from staff and qualitative framework analysis of official documents along with transcribed interviews and workshop data from various staff groups. The framework was based on a matrix with Death Literacy features on one axis and forms of impact on the other. Results: The DLI showed no positive change over time. Effect evaluation was challenged by high baseline mean scores and ceiling effects on the DLI, and issues associated with the use of a participatory research approach, e.g. baseline differences between groups related to recruitment strategies. However, qualitative findings indicated all three forms of impact described in Kleijberg et al.'s model: impact on individual and group development, action-oriented impact, and strategy-oriented impact. These were seen to be related to all Death Literacy features, most notably experiential learning and social action. Conclusion: Features of Death Literacy were relevant in understanding impact, although the usefulness of the DLI to measure change over time was limited in this study. A matrix framework provided nuanced insight beyond either model alone. Congruence of different methodological assumptions should be carefully considered when designing investigations of effect and impact of complex interventions with limited researcher control.

Indexed as

advance care planningdeath literacyend-of-life conversationsGoWish cardsimpactmixed methodspalliative careparticipatory action researchresidential care homessurvey

Identifiers

PMID42732293
PMCPMC13570052

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.