Institute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
University of Gothenburg Centre for Person-Centred Care (GPCC), University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Health Expect. 2022 Jun;25(3):885-901. doi: 10.1111/hex.13461. Epub 2022 Mar 8.
The introduction of effective, evidence-based approaches to centredness in health care is hindered by the fact that research results are not easily accessible. This is partly due to the large volume of publications available and because the field is closely linked to and in some ways encompasses adjoining fields of research, for example, shared decision making and narrative medicine. In an attempt to survey the field of centredness in health care, a systematic overview of reviews was conducted with the purpose of illuminating how centredness in health care is presented in current reviews.
Searches for relevant reviews were conducted in the databases PubMed, Scopus, Cinahl, PsychINFO, Web of Science and EMBASE using terms connected to centredness in health care. Filters specific to review studies of all types and for inclusion of only English language results as well as a time frame of January 2017-December 2018, were applied.
The search strategy identified 3697 unique reviews, of which 31 were included in the study. The synthesis of the results from the 31 reviews identified three interrelated main themes: Attributes of centredness (what centredness is), Translation from theory into practice (how centredness is done) and Evaluation of effects (possible ways of measuring effects of centredness). Three main attributes of centeredness found were: being unique, being heard and shared responsibility. Aspects involved in translating theory into practice were sufficient prerequisites, strategies for action and tools used in safeguarding practice. Further, a variety and breadth of measures of effects were found in the included reviews.
Our synthesis demonstrates that current synthesized research literature on centredness in health care is broad, as it focuses both on explorations of the conceptual basis and the practice, as well as measures of effects. This study provides an understanding of the commonalities identified in the reviews on centredness in healthcare overall, ranging from theory to practice and from practice to evaluation.
Patient representatives were involved during the initiation of the project and in decisions about its focus, although no patient or public representatives made direct contributions to the review process.
有效且基于证据的以患者为中心的方法在医疗保健中的引入受到阻碍,因为研究结果不易获取。这部分是由于可用出版物数量庞大,并且该领域与相邻的研究领域密切相关,并且在某些方面包含了这些领域,例如共同决策和叙事医学。为了全面了解医疗保健中的以患者为中心,我们进行了系统的综述,目的是阐明当前综述中如何呈现医疗保健中的以患者为中心。
使用与医疗保健中的以患者为中心相关的术语,在 PubMed、Scopus、Cinahl、PsychINFO、Web of Science 和 EMBASE 数据库中搜索相关综述。应用了特定于所有类型的综述研究的过滤器,并仅包括英语结果和 2017 年 1 月至 2018 年 12 月的时间范围。
搜索策略确定了 3697 篇独特的综述,其中 31 篇被纳入研究。对 31 篇综述结果的综合分析确定了三个相互关联的主题:以患者为中心的属性(以患者为中心是什么)、从理论到实践的转化(如何实现以患者为中心)和效果评估(衡量以患者为中心效果的可能方法)。发现以患者为中心的三个主要属性是:独特性、被倾听和共同责任。将理论转化为实践所涉及的方面是充分的前提条件、行动策略和用于保障实践的工具。此外,在纳入的综述中还发现了各种广泛的效果衡量方法。
我们的综合分析表明,目前关于医疗保健中以患者为中心的综合研究文献广泛,既关注概念基础和实践,也关注效果衡量。这项研究提供了对总体上医疗保健中以患者为中心的综述中确定的共性的理解,从理论到实践,再到实践到评估。
患者代表在项目启动期间以及在决定项目重点时参与其中,尽管没有患者或公众代表直接参与审查过程。