ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2026
Evaluating the use of artificial intelligence and human guidance to teach generic and specialist skills in breaking bad news: A mixed methods exploration.
Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveBreaking bad news (BBN) is specified in the General Medical Council's Generic Professional Capabilities framework, which sets out core skills to be developed alongside curricula-specified capabilities in postgraduate training. To date, a wide variety of approaches to teaching BBN have been used, however, the application of artificial intelligence (AI) to learning in this field remains in its early stages and requires further investigation. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND
interventionTwo approaches were compared in response to the question What is the best way to break bad news?: a human-facilitated discussion versus an AI-generated response using ChatGPT-4. Both approaches produced high-level guidance condensed into short statements for online mixed methods evaluation by experienced medical educators. OUTCOME MEASURES AND
results41 doctors from 17 specialties and eight lay representatives provided free-text commentary as part of the assessment. Overall findings were compared with popular patient-focused BBN protocols, such as SPIKES, with qualitative analysis providing more details of skills requirements for generic and specialist levels of practice by adding more depth and nuance via three themes: patient experience, professionalism and access to support. Both approaches matched well with patient-focused protocols albeit they also addressed doctors' debriefing after BBN.
conclusionsOverall, AI produced more comprehensive, highly rated guidance suitable for early careers, but qualitative evaluation highlighted the need for more specialised skills, their nature and application, plus differences in preferred style and content between approaches. The value of tailoring communication, via a personalised approach developed from real-life experience, was also confirmed.
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.