INTRODUCTION
DISEASE, ADVANCED CANCER
It is important for clinicians to develop and maintain skills in predicting survival when a disease has become incurable and disease‐directed treatment options are limited or non‐existent.The European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) recommends that a second opinion might be useful for improving prognostic accuracy.Since the recommendations by the EAPC mention that clinicians should seek information, or ‘advice’, from colleagues or prognostic algorithms when making survival predictions, it is relevant to investigate how and to which degree prognostic advice from either of these sources is taken into account in a final survival prediction. Evidence suggests that human barriers to algorithm adoption are substantial in clinical practice,Expertise has previously been shown to have an impact on advice‐taking, with experts tending to discount advice more than non‐experts,This paper details a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) involving palliative healthcare professionals (HCPs) completing an online decision‐making task involving predicting advanced cancer patients' two‐week survival, where one group received advice perceived to come from another HCP and the other group received advice perceived to come from the PiPS‐B14 prognostic algorithm.