SynthesisJournal of clinical nursing2026
The Effectiveness of Family Health Conversations Delivered by Nurses: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of clinical nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo extract and interpret quantitative data exploring the effectiveness of family health conversations (FHCs) on family functioning, perceived support, health-related quality of life, caregiver burden and family health in families living with critical or chronic health conditions.
backgroundAddressing the health of families affected by critical or chronic illnesses requires focused attention. The effective integration of FHCs is hampered by a scarcity of rigorous quantitative studies that provide solid evidence on best practices and outcomes.
designA systematic review following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines.
methodsThe review is reported according to the PRISMA 2020 checklist. Appropriate studies were searched in PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and Cochrane Databases. Results of the search were imported into the Covidence web-based program. Included were studies with a quantitative research design, delivered to families with critical or chronic health conditions, describing FHCs based on the Calgary Family Assessment Model and/or the Calgary Family Intervention Model, and/or the Illness Beliefs Model, using reliable and validated instruments, published between 2008 and 2023, and written in English.
resultsIn total, 24 papers met the inclusion criteria. Sixteen papers used a quasi-experimental design, eight of which included a control group. Two papers used a mixed methods design, and six papers were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A statistically significant effect of FHCs on family functioning was reported in two RCTs and three quasi-experimental papers. We also found that a statistically significant effect of FHCs was reported on perceived support in 9 of 15 papers, quality of life in 4 of 11 papers and caregiver burden in 1 of 3 papers. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: The interventions reviewed revealed variability and partial results concerning the effectiveness of FHCs on family functioning. More rigorous research about short-term, intermediate- and long-term effectiveness is needed before conclusions can be drawn. REPORTING
methodThe study is reported according to the PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) (File S1). PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution. Data were gathered from previously published studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.