National Institute for Health Research, Applied Research Collaboration South West Peninsula (PenARC), Faculty of Health, Medicine, Dentistry and Human Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Centre for Person-Centred Care University of Gothenburg (GPCC), Institute of Health and Care Science, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Health Soc Care Community. 2022 Jan;30(1):330-340. doi: 10.1111/hsc.13406. Epub 2021 May 6.
Evidence is emerging of the potential of person-centred approaches to create partnerships between professionals and patients while also containing healthcare costs. This is important for enhancing outcomes in individuals with complex needs, who consistently report poor experiences with care. The shift towards person-centred care (PCC) is, however, a radical departure from the norm, with increased expectations of both professional and patient. Although there have been studies on the ways in which health care professionals can modify practice to enhance PCC, not all patients welcome changes to their care delivery or understand the aim of the new approach. Without engagement and understanding from the patient, a PCC approach will fail to initiate. Few studies explore how, why and in what circumstances patients become more involved in their care and what professionals can do to enhance participation. We conducted a secondary analysis of qualitative data to examine this issue. Data were collected between 2014 and 2018 from primary care-based PCC projects across the southwest of England. Supported by people with experience (practitioners and those receiving treatment), theory building workshops developed an explanatory framework that identified contextual factors and mechanisms likely to contribute to effective engagement. Our results show that engagement in a care partnership is achieved through trust and a patient's sense of candidacy. Shared understanding of purpose, clarity of expectations and power sharing were found to facilitate trusted relationships between professional and patient and encourage candidacy. Only then is it possible to develop goals that are meaningful to the patient. Our theory of engagement applies to professionals and patients alike but places the initial burden of responsibility on those who hold the most power: the professional and the system. This theory has the potential to explain patient engagement in PCC and a range of other service interventions, treatments and intervention research.
越来越多的证据表明,以人为本的方法有可能在控制医疗成本的同时,在专业人员和患者之间建立伙伴关系。这对于提高那些有复杂需求的患者的治疗效果非常重要,因为他们对医疗护理的体验一直很差。然而,向以患者为中心的护理(PCC)转变是对常规做法的彻底背离,对专业人员和患者的期望都有所增加。尽管已经有研究探讨了医疗保健专业人员如何改变实践以增强 PCC,但并非所有患者都欢迎对其护理服务进行更改,或者理解新方法的目的。如果患者没有参与和理解,PCC 方法将无法启动。很少有研究探讨患者如何、为何以及在何种情况下会更积极地参与自己的护理,以及专业人员可以采取哪些措施来增强患者的参与度。我们对定性数据进行了二次分析,以研究这个问题。数据于 2014 年至 2018 年在英格兰西南部的以患者为中心的初级保健项目中收集。在有经验的人员(从业者和接受治疗者)的支持下,理论构建研讨会制定了一个解释框架,确定了可能有助于有效参与的背景因素和机制。我们的研究结果表明,通过信任和患者的候选感,才能实现对护理伙伴关系的参与。共同的目标理解、明确的期望和权力共享被发现有助于在专业人员和患者之间建立信任关系,并鼓励候选感。只有这样,才能制定对患者有意义的目标。我们的参与理论既适用于专业人员,也适用于患者,但将最初的责任负担放在拥有最多权力的人身上:专业人员和系统。该理论有可能解释患者在 PCC 以及一系列其他服务干预、治疗和干预研究中的参与度。