ArticleThe oncologist2026
Prognostic disclosure, end-of-life communication, and social support associated with distinct dyadic death-preparedness states among cancer dyads.
Article in The oncologist, 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
Abstract
backgroundPreparing for death is relational because patients with advanced cancer and family caregivers confront approaching death together. We examined individual and relational factors associated with distinct dyadic death-preparedness states during patients' final 6 months of life. PATIENTS AND
methodsIn this longitudinal cohort study of 694 patient-caregiver dyads, hierarchical generalized linear models with lagged time-varying predictors examined unprepared-concordant, cognitive-concordant, emotional-concordant, and sufficient-concordant states versus discordance across individual, relationship, and relationship-process domains.
resultsOlder patient age was associated with lower likelihood of cognitive concordance but higher likelihood of sufficient concordance, and higher patient educational attainment was associated with sufficient concordance. Patient- and caregiver-reported physician prognostic disclosure was associated with higher likelihoods of cognitive concordance (AORs, 3.416 and 2.411, respectively) and sufficient concordance (AORs, 3.743 and 2.854, respectively). Greater patient-reported end-of-life discussions with caregivers were associated with a higher likelihood of cognitive concordance (AOR, 1.190; 95% CI, 1.106-1.279) but a lower likelihood of emotional concordance (AOR, 0.800; 95% CI, 0.650-0.985). Higher patient- and caregiver-reported social support was associated with a lower likelihood of cognitive concordance (AORs, 0.956 and 0.945, respectively).
conclusionsRelationship-process factors were more consistently associated with dyadic death-preparedness states than individual or relationship characteristics. These findings support assessing both patients' and caregivers' cognitive and emotional preparedness and considering reported prognostic disclosure, patient-caregiver end-of-life discussions, and social-support dynamics when evaluating dyadic preparation for death.
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.