93
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      An Integrative Model of Patient-Centeredness – A Systematic Review and Concept Analysis

      research-article
      * , , ,
      PLoS ONE
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Existing models of patient-centeredness reveal a lack of conceptual clarity. This results in a heterogeneous use of the term, unclear measurement dimensions, inconsistent results regarding the effectiveness of patient-centered interventions, and finally in difficulties in implementing patient-centered care. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the different dimensions of patient-centeredness described in the literature and to propose an integrative model of patient-centeredness based on these results.

          Methods

          Protocol driven search in five databases, combined with a comprehensive secondary search strategy. All articles that include a definition of patient-centeredness were eligible for inclusion in the review and subject to subsequent content analysis. Two researchers independently first screened titles and abstracts, then assessed full texts for eligibility. In each article the given definition of patient-centeredness was coded independently by two researchers. We discussed codes within the research team and condensed them into an integrative model of patient-centeredness.

          Results

          4707 records were identified through primary and secondary search, of which 706 were retained after screening of titles and abstracts. 417 articles (59%) contained a definition of patient-centeredness and were coded. 15 dimensions of patient-centeredness were identified: essential characteristics of clinician, clinician-patient relationship, clinician-patient communication, patient as unique person, biopsychosocial perspective, patient information, patient involvement in care, involvement of family and friends, patient empowerment, physical support, emotional support, integration of medical and non-medical care, teamwork and teambuilding, access to care, coordination and continuity of care. In the resulting integrative model the dimensions were mapped onto different levels of care.

          Conclusions

          The proposed integrative model of patient-centeredness allows different stakeholders to speak the same language. It provides a foundation for creating better measures and interventions. It can also be used to inform the development of clinical guidance documents and health policy directives, and through this support the shift towards patient-centered health care.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Patient-centredness: a conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature.

          A 'patient-centred' approach is increasingly regarded as crucial for the delivery of high quality care by doctors. However, there is considerable ambiguity concerning the exact meaning of the term and the optimum method of measuring the process and outcomes of patient-centred care. This paper reviews the conceptual and empirical literature in order to develop a model of the various aspects of the doctor-patient relationship encompassed by the concept of 'patient-centredness' and to assess the advantages and disadvantages of alternative methods of measurement. Five conceptual dimensions are identified: biopsychosocial perspective; 'patient-as-person'; sharing power and responsibility; therapeutic alliance; and 'doctor-as-person'. Two main approaches to measurement are evaluated: self-report instruments and external observation methods. A number of recommendations concerning the measurement of patient-centredness are made.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Measuring patient-centered communication in patient-physician consultations: theoretical and practical issues.

            The goal of patient-centered communication (PCC) is to help practitioners provide care that is concordant with the patient's values, needs and preferences, and that allows patients to provide input and participate actively in decisions regarding their health and health care. PCC is widely endorsed as a central component of high-quality health care, but it is unclear what it is and how to measure it. PCC includes four communication domains: the patient's perspective, the psychosocial context, shared understanding, and sharing power and responsibility. Problems in measuring PCC include lack of theoretical and conceptual clarity, unexamined assumptions, lack of adequate control for patient characteristics and social contexts, modest correlations between survey and observational measures, and overlap of PCC with other constructs. We outline problems in operationalizing PCC, choosing tools for assessing PCC, choosing data sources, identifying mediators of PCC, and clarifying outcomes of PCC. We propose nine areas for improvement: (1) developing theory-based operational definitions of PCC; (2) clarifying what is being measured; (3) accounting for the communication behaviors of each individual in the encounter as well as interactions among them; (4) accounting for context; (5) validating of instruments; (6) interpreting patient ratings of their physicians; (7) doing longitudinal studies; (8) examining pathways and mediators of links between PCC and outcomes; and (9) dealing with the complexity of the construct of PCC. We discuss the use of observational and survey measures, multi-method and mixed-method research, and standardized patients. The increasing influence of the PCC literature to guide medical education, licensure of clinicians, and assessments of quality provides a strong rationale for further clarification of these measurement issues.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              “Many miles to go …”: a systematic review of the implementation of patient decision support interventions into routine clinical practice

              Background Two decades of research has established the positive effect of using patient-targeted decision support interventions: patients gain knowledge, greater understanding of probabilities and increased confidence in decisions. Yet, despite their efficacy, the effectiveness of these decision support interventions in routine practice has yet to be established; widespread adoption has not occurred. The aim of this review was to search for and analyze the findings of published peer-reviewed studies that investigated the success levels of strategies or methods where attempts were made to implement patient-targeted decision support interventions into routine clinical settings. Methods An electronic search strategy was devised and adapted for the following databases: ASSIA, CINAHL, Embase, HMIC, Medline, Medline-in-process, OpenSIGLE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Social Services Abstracts, and the Web of Science. In addition, we used snowballing techniques. Studies were included after dual independent assessment. Results After assessment, 5322 abstracts yielded 51 articles for consideration. After examining full-texts, 17 studies were included and subjected to data extraction. The approach used in all studies was one where clinicians and their staff used a referral model, asking eligible patients to use decision support. The results point to significant challenges to the implementation of patient decision support using this model, including indifference on the part of health care professionals. This indifference stemmed from a reported lack of confidence in the content of decision support interventions and concern about disruption to established workflows, ultimately contributing to organizational inertia regarding their adoption. Conclusions It seems too early to make firm recommendations about how best to implement patient decision support into routine practice because approaches that use a ‘referral model’ consistently report difficulties. We sense that the underlying issues that militate against the use of patient decision support and, more generally, limit the adoption of shared decision making, are under-investigated and under-specified. Future reports from implementation studies could be improved by following guidelines, for example the SQUIRE proposals, and by adopting methods that would be able to go beyond the ‘barriers’ and ‘facilitators’ approach to understand more about the nature of professional and organizational resistance to these tools. The lack of incentives that reward the use of these interventions needs to be considered as a significant impediment.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1932-6203
                2014
                17 September 2014
                : 9
                : 9
                : e107828
                Affiliations
                [1]Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
                Providence VA Medical Center and Brown University, United States of America
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: IS MH JD. Performed the experiments: IS JMZ JD. Analyzed the data: IS JMZ JD. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: IS JMZ. Contributed to the writing of the manuscript: IS JMZ MH JD.

                Article
                PONE-D-14-20294
                10.1371/journal.pone.0107828
                4168256
                25229640
                fd0b3e49-ed7a-4228-a528-ae0179dfd22d
                Copyright @ 2014

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 6 May 2014
                : 22 August 2014
                Page count
                Pages: 9
                Funding
                This project is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (project number: 01GX1043). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Communication in Health Care
                Health Care Policy
                Health Care Providers
                Health Services Research
                Quality of Care
                Medical Humanities
                Medical Education
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Systematic Reviews
                Research Design
                Qualitative Studies
                Custom metadata
                The authors confirm that, for approved reasons, some access restrictions apply to the data underlying the findings. Concerning the journal's requirements regarding the availability of the data, we would like to specify that we cannot make all data freely available, due to legal restrictions. The reason for this is that the analysed data were 417 full texts of published manuscripts, most of which un-derlie copyright restrictions. However, we can share data upon request to the corresponding author ( i.scholl@ 123456uke.de ).

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article