To adapt the Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG), Ariadne Labs, Massachusetts USA, to a local Singapore version and evaluate its acceptability.

Qualitative study using semistructured interviews.

49 participants (30 patients with serious illnesses, five family caregivers and 14 healthcare providers (HCP)) recruited from three public hospitals in Singapore.

Face-to-face or virtual indepth interviews.

Guided by the Heuristic Framework and Cultural Sensitivity model, we employed a multi-stage iterative design. Starting with the original SICG, we iterated the guide following three rounds of cognitive interviews among patients followed by expert consultation (n=4) to derive a local version, subsequently reviewed by caregivers and HCP. We assessed acceptability of the SICG using traffic light colour codes—red (unacceptable), orange (needs change) and green (no change) and gathered suggestions to rephrase them. Using content analysis, we compared acceptability of questions as proportion of red, orange and green responses at each interview round and inductively derived themes reflecting views towards the guide.

The original SICG showed low acceptability, and most questions received high proportions of red responses. Negative words and phrases dampening hope, lack of comprehension due to complex framing and cultural insensitivity to prognostic discussions were key themes reflecting low acceptability. Surface and deep structural revisions that centred around positive framing with hopeful language, focusing on current values and individualising conversations (‘use if appropriate’ prompts) significantly improved the guide’s acceptability.

We derived a local Singapore SICG that aligns with the core elements of the original guide and fosters cultural sensitivity. The adapted version could be further tested in other Asian countries.