Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25309128›Full record

ArticleBMC nursing2014

Experiences of person-centred care - patients' perceptions: qualitative study.

Tariq Saleem J Alharbi, Eric Carlström, Inger Ekman, Anders Jarneborn, Lars-Eric Olsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nursing, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. "Care is not care if it isn't person-centred": A content analysis of how Person-Centred Care is expressed on Twitter.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Tariq Saleem J AlharbiInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, SE 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden.
Eric CarlströmInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, SE 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden ; Centre for Person-centred Care (GPCC), Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Inger EkmanInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, SE 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden ; Centre for Person-centred Care (GPCC), Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Anders JarnebornDepartment of Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital/Sahlgrenska, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Lars-Eric OlssonInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, SE 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden ; Centre for Person-centred Care (GPCC), Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient care models have been implemented and documented worldwide. Many studies have focused on features that hinder and facilitate the shift to such models, including the implementation process, staff involvement, resistance to new models and cultural dimensions. However, few studies have identified the potential effects of such new care models from a patient perspective. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether patients did in fact perceive the intentions of partnership in the new care model 1 year after its implementation.

methodsSixteen participants were interviewed, selected from two wards in a medical department where a new care model had been implemented 1 year earlier. A directed deductive content analysis was selected. The aim of the directed approach to content analysis was to investigate to what extent the new care model had been implemented, using patients' perspectives to describe the level of implementation. A coding framework was developed based on a theoretical paper that described the key features of the new care model.

resultsThe implementation of person-centred care had clearly occurred to a large degree, even if some patients appeared not to have been exposed to the model at all. Aspects of the newly implemented care model were obvious; however, it was also clear that implementation was not complete. The analysis showed that patients felt listened to and that their own perception of the situation had been noted. Patients spontaneously expressed that they felt that the staff saw them as persons and did not solely focus on their disease. It was also stated that not every ailment or aspect of a patient's illness needed to be addressed or resolved for open listening to be perceived as a positive experience.

conclusionsThe findings indicate that even though some patients were not interested in participating and playing an active role in their own care, this might relate to a lack of understanding on how to invite them to do so and to increase their confidence. To change healthcare from a paternalistic system to care where patients are seen as partners may require pedagogical skills.

Indexed as

Deductive content analysisHealth care modelsImplementing carePatient-centred carePatients’ experiencePerson-centred care

Identifiers

PMID25309128
PMCPMC4193911

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.