A national research centre for the evaluation and implementation of person‐centred care

Content from the first interventional studies

Datos Bibliográficos

ID19506743
AutoresHanna Gyllensten (0000-0001-6890-5162, Centre for Person‐Centred Care (GPCC) University of Gothenburg Gothenburg Sweden, autor de correspondencia), Ida Björkman (0000-0003-3171-683X, Centre for Person‐Centred Care (GPCC) University of Gothenburg Gothenburg Sweden), Eva Jakobsson Ung (0000-0002-8955-6552, Centre for Person‐Centred Care (GPCC) University of Gothenburg Gothenburg Sweden), Inger Ekman (0000-0002-5559-5203, Centre for Person‐Centred Care (GPCC) University of Gothenburg Gothenburg Sweden), Sofie Jakobsson (0000-0001-5223-6363, Centre for Person‐Centred Care (GPCC) University of Gothenburg Gothenburg Sweden)
Año2020
Volumen23
Número5
Páginas1362-1375
Fecha de publicación2020-10-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaHealth Expectations (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1369-6513 • E-ISSN: 1369-7625
EditorialWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/hex.13120
PMID32808455
OpenAlexW3080874738
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas6
Referencias citadas28

BACKGROUND: Person-centred care (PCC) has been suggested as a potential means to improve the care of patients with chronic and long-term disorders. In this regard, a model for PCC was developed by the University of Gothenburg Centre for Person-Centred Care (GPCC). OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to explore the theoretical frameworks, designs, contexts and intervention characteristics in the first 27 interventional studies conducted based on the ethics for person-centredness provided by the GPCC. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A questionnaire to the principal investigators of the 27 intervention studies financed by the GPCC and conducted between 2010 and 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Theoretical frameworks, contexts of studies, person-centred ethic, and outcome measures. RESULTS: Most of the interventions were based on the same ethical assumptions for person-centredness but theories and models in applying the interventions differed. All studies were controlled; 12 randomized and 15 quasi-experimental. Hospital in- and outpatient and primary care settings were represented and the outcome measures were related to the specific theories used. A complexity in designing, introducing and evaluating PCC interventions was evident. CONCLUSION: The frameworks, designs and interventions in the studies were in line with the established ethical basis of PCC, whereas outcome measures varied widely. Consensus discussions among researchers in the field are needed to make comparisons between studies feasible. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS: Patients or the public made no direct contributions, although most of the studied projects included such initiatives

Medical education · Psychological intervention · Research design · Sociology · Applied Psychology · Chronic Disease Management Strategies · Medicine · Mental Health and Psychiatry · Nursing · Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare · Psychology