“…The first pile consisted of articles ( n = 25) whose findings did not have the potential to be relevant for communication training. The four main reasons for not considering these articles were as follows: they reported an element of communication, which is specific to a local context and thus not suitable for training outside this very context, for instance Egan et al (), Heidari and Mardani‐Hamooleh () and Anarado, Ezeome, Ofi, Nwaneri, and Ogbolu (); they assessed the effect of a communication tool, for instance Miller et al (), Lipson‐Smith et al () and Cooley et al (); they focused on a singular clinical situation (e.g., fertility preservation) or treatment (e.g., for early stage non‐small cell lung cancer, recurrent ovarian cancer), for instance Elit et al (), Dyer and Quinn (), and Golden, Thomas, Moghanaki, and Slatore (); or they addressed interventions to empower patients, for instance Jones et al (), and Halkett et al ().…”