Cancer Care ProvidersSICG-AssistNCT07753668
Better Communication, Better Care Using SICG Assistant Based on Artificial Intelligence
A study testing Intervention Group in people with Cancer Care Providers, run by Cudeca Hospice Foundation at 2 sites in Spain.
Trial summary
The project 'Better Communication, Better Care' has as its main objective to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of the 'Guide to conversation in serious illness (SICG)' by means of a significant reduction in anxiety and depression index in patients with serious illness and their families. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Cancer Care Providers
- What is being tested?
- Intervention Group
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 190 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesSpain
- Study dates
- 1 Jan 2026to 31 Dec 2028
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Adults aged 18-80 years.
- Diagnosis of a serious illness, defined as an illness carrying a high risk of mortality that negatively impacts quality of life or daily functioning, and that typically causes significant emotional distress in caregivers.
- Karnofsky Performance Status ≥ 50 or Performance Status ≤ 2 or Palliative Performance Scale ≥ 50.
- Spanish as native/fluent language, sufficient to complete the study questionnaires.
- Cared for by an HCP enrolled in the study (intervention or control arm).
- Able and willing to provide written informed consent.
Who cannot join
- Cognitive or perceptual impairment that prevents reliable completion of the study questionnaires.
- Inability to communicate in Spanish to the level required by the assessment instruments.
- Any condition that, in the investigator's judgment, makes participation unsafe or unfeasible (e.g., clinical instability incompatible with follow-up).
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country.
Spain2 sites
CUDECA Institute/CUDECA Foundation
Benalmádena, Málaga, 29631
Fundación CUDECA
Benalmádena, Málaga, 29631
About this study
Official title: Improving Care for Cancer Patients by Facilitating Communication With Clinicians Through a Serious Illness Communication Program Using an Assistant Based on Artificial Intelligence.
The project 'Better Communication, Better Care' has as its main objective to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of the 'Guide to conversation in serious illness (SICG)' by means of a significant reduction in anxiety and depression index in patients with serious illness and their families. Additionally, it aims to explore the perceived utility of this guide from the perspective of patients, families, and healthcare professionals involved in Palliative Care. Another important objective is to assess the effectiveness of the training program to improve communicative competencies of healthcare professionals in real clinical contexts. Furthermore, the project is structured around a pragmatic randomized clinical trial by clusters, where healthcare professionals will be randomized into intervention and control groups, with patients being the unit of analysis. In parallel, a feasibility and usability study of the mobile application and virtual assistant that will support the implementation of the guide will be conducted, evaluating parameters such as learning facility, satisfaction, efficiency, and errors through validated instruments. Finally, a cost-benefit analysis will be carried out to determine the economic efficiency of the program in terms of resource optimization and improvement in care quality.
Read the detailed description
Communication is a cornerstone of person-centered care, and takes on particular importance in serious illness, defined here as a condition carrying a high risk of mortality that negatively affects quality of life or daily functioning and that commonly produces significant emotional distress in caregivers. Inadequate, delayed, or infrequent communication contributes to avoidable patient and family suffering, and clinicians often lack structured tools and training to conduct high-quality conversations about goals, values, and preferences in serious illness.
The Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG), originally developed and validated internationally, provides a structured framework that clinicians can use throughout the course of an illness to elicit patient values and preferences and align care accordingly. This project - conducted by a research team that collaborates directly with the guide's original international developer group - will implement the SICG in routine clinical practice across primary care and hospital-based palliative care services in the province of Málaga, Spain, supported by a purpose-built mobile application and virtual assistant designed to facilitate documentation and continuity of the conversation across multiple involved clinicians.
The study combines four complementary components:
Cluster-randomized controlled trial (quantitative, confirmatory): Healthcare professionals (HCPs) are randomized (block randomization, blocks of 4) into an intervention arm (trained in and using the SICG, supported by the app/virtual assistant) or a control arm (usual care). Patients and families are recruited by their assigned HCP and constitute the unit of analysis (multilevel/mixed-model analysis accounting for clustering at the HCP level).
Before-after evaluation of HCP communication skills and satisfaction following SICG training.
Feasibility and usability study of the mobile application and virtual assistant, using the System Usability Scale (SUS, Spanish-validated) and the mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ).
Cost-utility analysis from the funder's perspective (1-year time horizon), estimating incremental cost-effectiveness based on training costs, implementation costs, and healthcare resource utilization (emergency and hospital admissions, palliative care referrals).
A parallel qualitative strand (individual/group narrative interviews with HCPs, patients, and family key informants) will explore perceived utility of the SICG and document emergent experiences during implementation, analyzed thematically using an iterative, constructionist approach (NVivo).
Ethical approval for evaluation of the SICG implementation has been granted by the Comité de Ética de Investigación Provincial de Málaga (session of 30/09/2021); an amendment is planned to extend approval to cover use of the supporting mobile application (feasibility study component).
Study Design Field Value Study Type Interventional Study Design Pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial (mixed-methods) Allocation Randomized (block randomization at HCP level, blocks of 4) Intervention Model Parallel assignment Randomization Unit Healthcare professional (cluster) Unit of Analysis Patient Masking None (open-label; not feasible to blind HCPs to guide use) Primary Purpose Supportive care / Health services research Estimated Cluster Size ~5 patients per HCP Number of Clusters 40 HCPs (20 intervention / 20 control) Condition/Disease
Serious illness (advanced/life-limiting disease with high mortality risk and significant impact on quality of life); Palliative Care
Intervention
Experimental arm: Complex two-phase intervention - (1) Training of HCPs in use of the SICG (structured communication skills course); (2) Use of the SICG by trained HCPs with patients and their families (approx. 5 patients/families per HCP), supported by a dedicated mobile application and virtual assistant.
Control arm: Standard/usual care (no SICG training or use).
Eligibility Criteria
Patients:
Serious illness as defined above Age 18-80 years Spanish as native language Karnofsky Performance Status ≥50, or ECOG Performance Status ≤2, or Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) ≥50 Signed informed consent
Family members:
Family member of an eligible patient with serious illness Age 18-80 years Spanish as native language Signed informed consent
Exclusion criteria (patients and family members): Cognitive or perceptual impairment precluding completion of study questionnaires.
Healthcare professionals (HCPs):
Inclusion: Specialists in Palliative Care, Oncology, Hematology, or Primary Care, affiliated with Fundación CUDECA, Servicio Andaluz de Salud, or Institut Català d'Oncologia Exclusion: Any professional not meeting inclusion criteria Sample Size
190 patients with serious illness, calculated to detect a between-group difference of 2.5 points in anxiety/depression scores, with 95% confidence and 80% power, accounting for a design effect of 1.2 and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.05. Patients recruited via 40 HCPs, average cluster size of 5.
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome:
Change in anxiety and depression levels (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS) in patients and family members, intervention vs. control group.
Secondary Outcomes:
Perceived usefulness of the SICG (patients, families, HCPs) HCP communication skills and self-efficacy (validated communication self-confidence and expected-outcomes scales; psychosocial aspects of patient care scale) SICG implementation process fidelity and reach (patient identification/referral criteria; number of eligible vs. enrolled patients) Quality of life (EuroQoL-5D-5L; QLQ-C15-PAL) Cost-utility of SICG implementation (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) Additional patient measures: Karnofsky Index, PPS, PS, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), Distress Thermometer App/virtual assistant usability and feasibility (SUS, MAUQ; learnability, efficiency, error rate, user satisfaction, engagement) Data Collection \& Analysis
Quantitative data collected via electronic case report form (REDCap, hosted by Instituto IBIMA). Qualitative data collected via audio-recorded interviews, transcribed and analyzed in NVivo. Quantitative analysis by intention-to-treat; multilevel modeling to account for clustering at the HCP level; ICC calculated for the primary outcome; repeated-measures ANOVA for within-group change over time; multivariate imputation for missing data; significance threshold p<0.05 (two-sided); SPSS v25.0.
Estimated Timeline Recruitment of HCPs and training: approx. 8 months SICG implementation and follow-up: minimum 12 months per participating HCP Utility interviews: two time points during implementation Total estimated project duration: 36 months Data Sharing / Repository
De-identified data intended for deposit in a public repository (RIUMA - Universidad de Málaga institutional repository) following FAIR principles, subject to data protection regulations (GDPR; Spanish LOPDGDD 3/2018). Minimum 10-year data availability guaranteed by the research team.
- Conditions
- Cancer Care Providers
- Being tested
- Intervention Group
- Keywords
- Palliative Care, Cancer Care Facilities, Artificial Intelligence, Interdisciplinary Communication, Decision Making, Shared, Machine Learning
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Intervention GroupDevice
The intervention combines a structured serious illness communication guide with an AI-powered virtual assistant app. Unlike standard communication training, the app provides real-time support during clinical encounters: it records conversations automatically, suggests unexplored topics to the clinician, and enables post-visit discourse analysis to anticipate patient needs and predict clinical events. Healthcare professionals receive training in the use of the guide and app. Effectiveness is evaluated through a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial (unit of randomization: HCP; unit of analysis: patient), a before-after design assessing HCP communication skills and satisfaction, a feasibility study using SUS and MAUQ questionnaires, and a cost-utility analysis over a one-year horizon. Qualitative data are collected via narrative interviews with HCPs and patient/family key informants to capture implementation experiences and emergent causal pathways.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Usual Care group | No intervention | Usual care. the subject recieve the usual care |
| SICG Group | Experimental | The SICG Group recieved the intervention of the study. As this is a cluster trial, the intervention operates at two levels. In the case of healthcare professionals, the experimental arm receives training in the use of the SICG for subsequent use with their patients. For patients, the experimental group receives the intervention through healthcare professionals' use of the SICG to explore their wishes and expectations regarding their care. Receives: Device: Intervention Group |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change in patient anxiety and depression
Change from baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) score in patients with serious illness, comparing intervention arm (care delivered by HCPs trained in the Serious Illness Conversation Guide [SICG]) vs. control arm (standard care). HADS comprises 14 items (7 anxiety, 7 depression), each scored 0-3; subscale range 0-21. Higher scores indicate worse symptoms. A between-group difference of 2.5 points is considered clinically relevant.
Measured: Baseline, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after SICG conversation (or equivalent index visit in the control arm).
Secondary outcomes (11)
Change in family-caregiver anxiety and depression
Change from baseline in HADS score among family caregivers of enrolled patients. Same scoring as above (range 0-21 per subscale; higher = worse).
Measured: Baseline, 3 months, and 6 months after the patient's SICG conversation.
Patient health-related quality of life (EuroQoL-5D-5L)
Change in EQ-5D-5L index value (utility score, range -0.594 to 1.000; higher = better QoL) and EQ-VAS (0-100). Used both as a clinical outcome and as the utility metric for the cost-utility analysis (QALYs).
Measured: Baseline, 3 months, and 6 months.
Patient cancer-specific quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL)
Change in QLQ-C15-PAL, the 15-item palliative-care short form of the QLQ-C30. Functional and symptom subscales linearly transformed to 0-100.
Measured: Baseline, 3 months, and 6 months.
Family-caregiver health-related quality of life (EuroQoL-5D-5L)
Change in EQ-5D-5L index and EQ-VAS in family caregivers.
Measured: Baseline, 3 months, and 6 months.
Patient symptom burden (ESAS)
Change in Edmonton Symptom Assessment System total distress score (10 symptoms, each 0-10; total 0-100; higher = worse).
Measured: Baseline, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months.
Patient and caregiver distress (Distress Thermometer)
Change in NCCN Distress Thermometer score (single-item visual analogue, 0-10; ≥4 = clinically significant distress).
Measured: Baseline, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months.
Patient functional status (Karnofsky Performance Status / Palliative Performance Scale)
Change in Karnofsky Performance Status (0-100, higher = better function) and Palliative Performance Scale (0-100% in 10% decrements). Used both as descriptive variables and as eligibility-confirmation measures (KPS ≥50 or PPS ≥50 at enrolment).
Measured: Baseline, 3 months, and 6 months.
Patient and family satisfaction with SICG
Ad-hoc satisfaction questionnaire on the use and perceived helpfulness of the Serious Illness Conversation, administered after the index conversation. more satisfaction better care.
Measured: Within 2 weeks after the SICG conversation.
HCP communication self-efficacy and attitudes (pre-post training)
Change in three validated scales administered to participating healthcare professionals: (a) Self-Efficacy in Communication Skills scale; (b) Expected Outcomes of Communication scale; (c) Psychosocial Aspects of Patient Care scale. Higher scores indicate greater confidence, more positive expectations, and greater attention to psychosocial care, respectively.
Measured: Baseline (pre-training), immediately post-training, and 6 and 12 months after training.
HCP satisfaction with SICP training and implementation
Ad-hoc satisfaction questionnaire on the SICP training programme and on the experience of implementing the SICG in routine practice. Better score better satisfaction.
Measured: Immediately after training and 12 months after the start of SICG implementation.
Healthcare resource utilization
Number and type of contacts with healthcare services during the 6 months following the index conversation, extracted from electronic health records: emergency-department visits, hospital admissions and length of stay, outpatient visits, and referrals to specialist palliative care.
Measured: From index conversation through 6 months of follow-up.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted7 Aug 2026
- Study start1 Jan 2026
- Primary completion31 Oct 2028 (estimated)
- Study completion31 Dec 2028 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (10)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Cancer Care ProvidersStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Sequential
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 190 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Cudeca Hospice Foundation
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Instituto de Salud Carlos III
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07753668
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- PI25/01603
- Acronym
- SICG-Assist
- Status last verified
- Apr 2026
- First submitted
- 27 Apr 2026
- Last updated
- 7 Aug 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Paladino J, Brannen E, Benotti E, Henrich N, Ritchie C, Sanders J, Lakin JR. Implementing Serious Illness Communication Processes in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2021 May;38(5):459-466. doi: 10.1177/1049909120951095. Epub 2020 Aug 14.
PubMed 32794412Jain N, Bernacki RE. Goals of Care Conversations in Serious Illness: A Practical Guide. Med Clin North Am. 2020 May;104(3):375-389. doi: 10.1016/j.mcna.2019.12.001.
PubMed 32312404Paladino J, Koritsanszky L, Nisotel L, Neville BA, Miller K, Sanders J, Benjamin E, Fromme E, Block S, Bernacki R. Patient and clinician experience of a serious illness conversation guide in oncology: A descriptive analysis. Cancer Med. 2020 Jul;9(13):4550-4560. doi: 10.1002/cam4.3102. Epub 2020 May 4.
PubMed 32363775Paladino J, Koritsanszky L, Neal BJ, Lakin JR, Kavanagh J, Lipsitz S, Fromme EK, Sanders J, Benjamin E, Block S, Bernacki R. Effect of the Serious Illness Care Program on Health Care Utilization at the End of Life for Patients with Cancer. J Palliat Med. 2020 Oct;23(10):1365-1369. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2019.0437. Epub 2020 Jan 3.
PubMed 31904304Andrady AL, Pandey KK, Heikkila AM. Interactive effects of solar UV radiation and climate change on material damage. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2019 Mar 1;18(3):804-825. doi: 10.1039/c8pp90065e. Epub 2019 Feb 27.
PubMed 30810563Bernacki RE, Block SD; American College of Physicians High Value Care Task Force. Communication about serious illness care goals: a review and synthesis of best practices. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Dec;174(12):1994-2003. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.5271.
PubMed 25330167Bernacki R, Hutchings M, Vick J, Smith G, Paladino J, Lipsitz S, Gawande AA, Block SD. Development of the Serious Illness Care Program: a randomised controlled trial of a palliative care communication intervention. BMJ Open. 2015 Oct 6;5(10):e009032. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009032.
PubMed 26443662Paladino J, Kilpatrick L, O'Connor N, Prabhakar R, Kennedy A, Neal BJ, Kavanagh J, Sanders J, Block S, Fromme E. Training Clinicians in Serious Illness Communication Using a Structured Guide: Evaluation of a Training Program in Three Health Systems. J Palliat Med. 2020 Mar;23(3):337-345. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2019.0334. Epub 2019 Sep 17.
PubMed 31503520Lakin JR, Desai M, Engelman K, O'Connor N, Teuteberg WG, Coackley A, Kilpatrick LB, Gawande A, Fromme EK. Earlier identification of seriously ill patients: an implementation case series. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2020 Dec;10(4):e31. doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2019-001789. Epub 2019 Jun 28.
PubMed 31253734Steinhauser KE, Christakis NA, Clipp EC, McNeilly M, McIntyre L, Tulsky JA. Factors considered important at the end of life by patients, family, physicians, and other care providers. JAMA. 2000 Nov 15;284(19):2476-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.284.19.2476.
PubMed 11074777
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 7 Aug 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Improving Care for Cancer Patients by Facilitating Communication With Clinicians Through a Serious Illness Communication Program Using an Assistant Based on Artificial Intelligence.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07753668
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SICG-Assist / PI25/01603
- Conditions
- Cancer Care Providers
- Keywords
- Palliative Care, Cancer Care Facilities, Artificial Intelligence, Interdisciplinary Communication, Decision Making, Shared, Machine Learning
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Active, not recruiting
- Enrolment
- 190 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Cudeca Hospice FoundationUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Instituto de Salud Carlos III
- Study start
- 1 Jan 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Oct 2028 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 31 Dec 2028 (estimated)
- First posted
- 7 Aug 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The project 'Better Communication, Better Care' has as its main objective to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of the 'Guide to conversation in serious illness (SICG)' by means of a significant reduction in anxiety and depression index in patients with serious illness and their families. Additionally, it aims to explore the perceived utility of this guide from the perspective of patients, families, and healthcare professionals involved in Palliative Care. Another important objective is to assess the effectiveness of the training program to improve communicative competencies of healthcare professionals in real clinical contexts. Furthermore, the project is structured around a pragmatic randomized clinical trial by clusters, where healthcare professionals will be randomized into intervention and control groups, with patients being the unit of analysis. In parallel, a feasibility and usability study of the mobile application and virtual assistant that will support the implementation of the guide will be conducted, evaluating parameters such as learning facility, satisfaction, efficiency, and errors through validated instruments. Finally, a cost-benefit analysis will be carried out to determine the economic efficiency of the program in terms of resource optimization and improvement in care quality.
Detailed description
Communication is a cornerstone of person-centered care, and takes on particular importance in serious illness, defined here as a condition carrying a high risk of mortality that negatively affects quality of life or daily functioning and that commonly produces significant emotional distress in caregivers. Inadequate, delayed, or infrequent communication contributes to avoidable patient and family suffering, and clinicians often lack structured tools and training to conduct high-quality conversations about goals, values, and preferences in serious illness.
The Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG), originally developed and validated internationally, provides a structured framework that clinicians can use throughout the course of an illness to elicit patient values and preferences and align care accordingly. This project - conducted by a research team that collaborates directly with the guide's original international developer group - will implement the SICG in routine clinical practice across primary care and hospital-based palliative care services in the province of Málaga, Spain, supported by a purpose-built mobile application and virtual assistant designed to facilitate documentation and continuity of the conversation across multiple involved clinicians.
The study combines four complementary components:
Cluster-randomized controlled trial (quantitative, confirmatory): Healthcare professionals (HCPs) are randomized (block randomization, blocks of 4) into an intervention arm (trained in and using the SICG, supported by the app/virtual assistant) or a control arm (usual care). Patients and families are recruited by their assigned HCP and constitute the unit of analysis (multilevel/mixed-model analysis accounting for clustering at the HCP level).
Before-after evaluation of HCP communication skills and satisfaction following SICG training.
Feasibility and usability study of the mobile application and virtual assistant, using the System Usability Scale (SUS, Spanish-validated) and the mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ).
Cost-utility analysis from the funder's perspective (1-year time horizon), estimating incremental cost-effectiveness based on training costs, implementation costs, and healthcare resource utilization (emergency and hospital admissions, palliative care referrals).
A parallel qualitative strand (individual/group narrative interviews with HCPs, patients, and family key informants) will explore perceived utility of the SICG and document emergent experiences during implementation, analyzed thematically using an iterative, constructionist approach (NVivo).
Ethical approval for evaluation of the SICG implementation has been granted by the Comité de Ética de Investigación Provincial de Málaga (session of 30/09/2021); an amendment is planned to extend approval to cover use of the supporting mobile application (feasibility study component).
Study Design Field Value Study Type Interventional Study Design Pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial (mixed-methods) Allocation Randomized (block randomization at HCP level, blocks of 4) Intervention Model Parallel assignment Randomization Unit Healthcare professional (cluster) Unit of Analysis Patient Masking None (open-label; not feasible to blind HCPs to guide use) Primary Purpose Supportive care / Health services research Estimated Cluster Size ~5 patients per HCP Number of Clusters 40 HCPs (20 intervention / 20 control) Condition/Disease
Serious illness (advanced/life-limiting disease with high mortality risk and significant impact on quality of life); Palliative Care
Intervention
Experimental arm: Complex two-phase intervention - (1) Training of HCPs in use of the SICG (structured communication skills course); (2) Use of the SICG by trained HCPs with patients and their families (approx. 5 patients/families per HCP), supported by a dedicated mobile application and virtual assistant.
Control arm: Standard/usual care (no SICG training or use).
Eligibility Criteria
Patients:
Serious illness as defined above Age 18-80 years Spanish as native language Karnofsky Performance Status ≥50, or ECOG Performance Status ≤2, or Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) ≥50 Signed informed consent
Family members:
Family member of an eligible patient with serious illness Age 18-80 years Spanish as native language Signed informed consent
Exclusion criteria (patients and family members): Cognitive or perceptual impairment precluding completion of study questionnaires.
Healthcare professionals (HCPs):
Inclusion: Specialists in Palliative Care, Oncology, Hematology, or Primary Care, affiliated with Fundación CUDECA, Servicio Andaluz de Salud, or Institut Català d'Oncologia Exclusion: Any professional not meeting inclusion criteria Sample Size
190 patients with serious illness, calculated to detect a between-group difference of 2.5 points in anxiety/depression scores, with 95% confidence and 80% power, accounting for a design effect of 1.2 and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.05. Patients recruited via 40 HCPs, average cluster size of 5.
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome:
Change in anxiety and depression levels (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS) in patients and family members, intervention vs. control group.
Secondary Outcomes:
Perceived usefulness of the SICG (patients, families, HCPs) HCP communication skills and self-efficacy (validated communication self-confidence and expected-outcomes scales; psychosocial aspects of patient care scale) SICG implementation process fidelity and reach (patient identification/referral criteria; number of eligible vs. enrolled patients) Quality of life (EuroQoL-5D-5L; QLQ-C15-PAL) Cost-utility of SICG implementation (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) Additional patient measures: Karnofsky Index, PPS, PS, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), Distress Thermometer App/virtual assistant usability and feasibility (SUS, MAUQ; learnability, efficiency, error rate, user satisfaction, engagement) Data Collection \& Analysis
Quantitative data collected via electronic case report form (REDCap, hosted by Instituto IBIMA). Qualitative data collected via audio-recorded interviews, transcribed and analyzed in NVivo. Quantitative analysis by intention-to-treat; multilevel modeling to account for clustering at the HCP level; ICC calculated for the primary outcome; repeated-measures ANOVA for within-group change over time; multivariate imputation for missing data; significance threshold p<0.05 (two-sided); SPSS v25.0.
Estimated Timeline Recruitment of HCPs and training: approx. 8 months SICG implementation and follow-up: minimum 12 months per participating HCP Utility interviews: two time points during implementation Total estimated project duration: 36 months Data Sharing / Repository
De-identified data intended for deposit in a public repository (RIUMA - Universidad de Málaga institutional repository) following FAIR principles, subject to data protection regulations (GDPR; Spanish LOPDGDD 3/2018). Minimum 10-year data availability guaranteed by the research team.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Sequential
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Usual Care group | No intervention | –Usual care. the subject recieve the usual care |
| SICG Group | Experimental | Device: Intervention GroupThe SICG Group recieved the intervention of the study. As this is a cluster trial, the intervention operates at two levels. In the case of healthcare professionals, the experimental arm receives training in the use of the SICG for subsequent use with their patients. For patients, the experimental group receives the intervention through healthcare professionals' use of the SICG to explore their wishes and expectations regarding their care. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Adults aged 18-80 years.
- Diagnosis of a serious illness, defined as an illness carrying a high risk of mortality that negatively impacts quality of life or daily functioning, and that typically causes significant emotional distress in caregivers.
- Karnofsky Performance Status ≥ 50 or Performance Status ≤ 2 or Palliative Performance Scale ≥ 50.
- Spanish as native/fluent language, sufficient to complete the study questionnaires.
- Cared for by an HCP enrolled in the study (intervention or control arm).
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Cognitive or perceptual impairment that prevents reliable completion of the study questionnaires.
- Inability to communicate in Spanish to the level required by the assessment instruments.
- Any condition that, in the investigator's judgment, makes participation unsafe or unfeasible (e.g., clinical instability incompatible with follow-up).
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention GroupThe intervention combines a structured serious illness communication guide with an AI-powered virtual assistant app. Unlike standard communication training, the app provides real-time support during clinical encounters: it records conversations automatically, suggests unexplored topics to the clinician, and enables post-visit discourse analysis to anticipate patient needs and predict clinical events. Healthcare professionals receive training in the use of the guide and app. Effectiveness is evaluated through a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial (unit of randomization: HCP; unit of analysis: patient), a before-after design assessing HCP communication skills and satisfaction, a feasibility study using SUS and MAUQ questionnaires, and a cost-utility analysis over a one-year horizon. Qualitative data are collected via narrative interviews with HCPs and patient/family key informants to capture implementation experiences and emergent causal pathways. | Device | SICG Group |
Primary outcome
Change in patient anxiety and depression
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after SICG conversation (or equivalent index visit in the control arm).
Change from baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) score in patients with serious illness, comparing intervention arm (care delivered by HCPs trained in the Serious Illness Conversation Guide [SICG]) vs. control arm (standard care). HADS comprises 14 items (7 anxiety, 7 depression), each scored 0-3; subscale range 0-21. Higher scores indicate worse symptoms. A between-group difference of 2.5 points is considered clinically relevant.
11 secondary outcomes
Change in family-caregiver anxiety and depression
Time frame: Baseline, 3 months, and 6 months after the patient's SICG conversation.
Patient health-related quality of life (EuroQoL-5D-5L)
Time frame: Baseline, 3 months, and 6 months.
Patient cancer-specific quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL)
Time frame: Baseline, 3 months, and 6 months.
Family-caregiver health-related quality of life (EuroQoL-5D-5L)
Time frame: Baseline, 3 months, and 6 months.
Patient symptom burden (ESAS)
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months.
Patient and caregiver distress (Distress Thermometer)
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months.
Patient functional status (Karnofsky Performance Status / Palliative Performance Scale)
Time frame: Baseline, 3 months, and 6 months.
Patient and family satisfaction with SICG
Time frame: Within 2 weeks after the SICG conversation.
HCP communication self-efficacy and attitudes (pre-post training)
Time frame: Baseline (pre-training), immediately post-training, and 6 and 12 months after training.
HCP satisfaction with SICP training and implementation
Time frame: Immediately after training and 12 months after the start of SICG implementation.
Healthcare resource utilization
Time frame: From index conversation through 6 months of follow-up.
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 7 Aug 2026.
- Background: PubMed 32794412Paladino J, Brannen E, Benotti E, Henrich N, Ritchie C, Sanders J, Lakin JR. Implementing Serious Illness Communication Processes in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2021 May;38(5):459-466. doi: 10.1177/1049909120951095. Epub 2020 Aug 14.
- Background: PubMed 32312404Jain N, Bernacki RE. Goals of Care Conversations in Serious Illness: A Practical Guide. Med Clin North Am. 2020 May;104(3):375-389. doi: 10.1016/j.mcna.2019.12.001.
- Background: PubMed 32363775Paladino J, Koritsanszky L, Nisotel L, Neville BA, Miller K, Sanders J, Benjamin E, Fromme E, Block S, Bernacki R. Patient and clinician experience of a serious illness conversation guide in oncology: A descriptive analysis. Cancer Med. 2020 Jul;9(13):4550-4560. doi: 10.1002/cam4.3102. Epub 2020 May 4.
- Background: PubMed 31904304Paladino J, Koritsanszky L, Neal BJ, Lakin JR, Kavanagh J, Lipsitz S, Fromme EK, Sanders J, Benjamin E, Block S, Bernacki R. Effect of the Serious Illness Care Program on Health Care Utilization at the End of Life for Patients with Cancer. J Palliat Med. 2020 Oct;23(10):1365-1369. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2019.0437. Epub 2020 Jan 3.
- Background: PubMed 30810563Andrady AL, Pandey KK, Heikkila AM. Interactive effects of solar UV radiation and climate change on material damage. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2019 Mar 1;18(3):804-825. doi: 10.1039/c8pp90065e. Epub 2019 Feb 27.
- Background: PubMed 25330167Bernacki RE, Block SD; American College of Physicians High Value Care Task Force. Communication about serious illness care goals: a review and synthesis of best practices. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Dec;174(12):1994-2003. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.5271.
- Background: PubMed 26443662Bernacki R, Hutchings M, Vick J, Smith G, Paladino J, Lipsitz S, Gawande AA, Block SD. Development of the Serious Illness Care Program: a randomised controlled trial of a palliative care communication intervention. BMJ Open. 2015 Oct 6;5(10):e009032. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009032.
- Background: PubMed 31503520Paladino J, Kilpatrick L, O'Connor N, Prabhakar R, Kennedy A, Neal BJ, Kavanagh J, Sanders J, Block S, Fromme E. Training Clinicians in Serious Illness Communication Using a Structured Guide: Evaluation of a Training Program in Three Health Systems. J Palliat Med. 2020 Mar;23(3):337-345. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2019.0334. Epub 2019 Sep 17.
- Background: PubMed 31253734Lakin JR, Desai M, Engelman K, O'Connor N, Teuteberg WG, Coackley A, Kilpatrick LB, Gawande A, Fromme EK. Earlier identification of seriously ill patients: an implementation case series. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2020 Dec;10(4):e31. doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2019-001789. Epub 2019 Jun 28.
- Background: PubMed 11074777Steinhauser KE, Christakis NA, Clipp EC, McNeilly M, McIntyre L, Tulsky JA. Factors considered important at the end of life by patients, family, physicians, and other care providers. JAMA. 2000 Nov 15;284(19):2476-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.284.19.2476.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Cancer Care Providers
Active, not recruiting
Decision Aid Website in Helping to Make Decisions About Fertility in Participants With Cancer
Breast Neoplasm, Colorectal Neoplasm
RecruitingObservational study
Perceptions of Hospital Care at Home for Patients With Cancer: A Qualitative Study of Cancer Providers, Patients and Caregivers.
Cancer
Recruiting
Evaluating the Communication Between Patients and Providers in Cancer Clinics
Cancer
Recruiting
An Intervention to Increase Genetic Testing in Families Who May Share a Gene Mutation Related to Cancer Risk and An Intervention to Help Patients and Their Primary Care Providers Stay Up-to-date About Uncertain Genetic Test Results
BRCA1 Mutation, POLD1 Gene Mutation
RecruitingObservational study
New Assessment System in Measuring Symptom Distress in Cancer Patients
Caregiver, Health Care Provider
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Intervention Group in people with Cancer Care Providers, run by Cudeca Hospice Foundation at 2 sites in Spain.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: under way, not looking for participants, as of the sponsor's last update on 7 Aug 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites in Spain. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Change in patient anxiety and depression (time frame: Baseline, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after SICG conversation (or equivalent index visit in the control arm).). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07753668, which also lists 10 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 7 Aug 2026.