Pascual López José Antonio, Gil Pérez Trinidad, Sánchez Sánchez Juan Antonio, Menárguez Puche Juan Francisco
Centro de Salud docente de Calasparra, Servicio Murciano de Salud, Calasparra, Murcia, España.
Centro de Salud docente Mariano Yago, Servicio Murciano de Salud, Yecla, Murcia, España.
Aten Primaria. 2020 Dec;52(10):738-749. doi: 10.1016/j.aprim.2019.11.004. Epub 2019 Dec 26.
Despite the acknowledged importance of 'Person Centered Care' (PCC), there are obvious limitations for its determination and measurement due to the difficulty of its exact definition. The objective of our review is to identify valid tools that measure the PCC or some of its aspects in the field of Primary Health Care.
Systematic review DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, PSYCinfo, IME-Biomedicine, LILACS and TESEO until May 31, 2018.
The inclusion criteria were: validation studies of questionnaires, systematic reviews of validation or other descriptive studies, all of which were carried out in the context of the Primary Health Care and that measured aspects of the PCC in professionals and/or patients. Two investigators independently reviewed the articles and their discrepancies were resolved by a third investigator.
Data were collected on the measured ACP aspects, target population, type of questionnaire, and data on validity and reliability.
1,415 articles were located, to which 54 additional references were subsequently added via cross references. Finally, there were 75 articles that fulfilled all the criteria and there were 39 which had the tools identified and classified according to the dimensions analyzed.
Due to the difficulty of measuring PCC as a whole, most of the articles refer only to one of its aspects or dimensions, with the patient's perspective prevailing over that of the professional. All these tools are, nevertheless, an important starting point for future questionnaires that attempt an integral approach to the PCC.
尽管“以患者为中心的护理”(PCC)的重要性已得到公认,但由于其确切定义难以界定,在对其进行确定和衡量方面存在明显局限性。我们本次综述的目的是识别在初级卫生保健领域中用于衡量PCC或其某些方面的有效工具。
系统综述
截至2018年5月31日的MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane、PSYCinfo、IME - 生物医学、LILACS和TESEO。
纳入标准为:问卷的验证研究、验证的系统综述或其他描述性研究,所有这些研究均在初级卫生保健背景下开展,且测量了专业人员和/或患者的PCC方面。两名研究人员独立审查文章,他们之间的分歧由第三名研究人员解决。
收集了有关所测量的PCC方面、目标人群、问卷类型以及有效性和可靠性数据。
共检索到1415篇文章,随后通过交叉引用又增加了54篇参考文献。最后,有75篇文章符合所有标准,有39篇文章拥有根据所分析维度确定并分类的工具。
由于难以整体衡量PCC,大多数文章仅涉及其中一个方面或维度,患者视角比专业人员视角更为突出。然而,所有这些工具都是未来试图采用整体方法衡量PCC的问卷的重要起点。