ArticleBMC health services research2018
Exploration of dynamics in a complex person-centred intervention process based on health professionals' perspectives.
Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Increasing person-centeredness in psychosis inpatient care: staff experiences from the Person-Centered Psychosis Care (PCPC) project.BMC health services research · 2022Trial
- Development and delivery of an allied health team intervention for older adults in the emergency department: A process evaluation.PloS one · 2022Trial
- Learning from the implementation of person-centred care: a meta-synthesis of research related to the Gothenburg framework.Frontiers in health services · 2025Review
- Relating person-centredness to quality-of-life assessments and patient-reported outcomes in healthcare: A critical theoretical discussion.Nursing philosophy : an international journal for healthcare professionals · 2022Article
- A comparison of three organisational levels in one health care region in Sweden implementing person-centred care: coupled, decoupled or recoupled in a complex organisation.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- [The innovation characteristics of person-centred care as perceived by healthcare professionals: an interview study employing a deductive-inductive content analysis guided by the consolidated framework for implementation research.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Striving for a more person-centered psychosis care: results of a hospital-based multi-professional educational intervention.BMC psychiatry · 2020Article
- Stakeholders' perspectives on models of care in the emergency department and the introduction of health and social care professional teams: A qualitative analysis using World Cafés and interviews.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
- "We are already person-centred in our practice"-A Qualitative Study of Ambulance Clinicians' Experiences of Person-Centred Care.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe assessment and evaluation of practical and sustainable development of health care has become a major focus of investigation in health services research. A key challenge for researchers as well as decision-makers in health care is to understand mechanisms influencing how complex interventions work and become embedded in practice, which is significant for both evaluation and later implementation. In this study, we explored nurses' and surgeons' perspectives on performing and participating in a complex multi-centre person-centred intervention process that aimed to support patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer to feel prepared for surgery, discharge and recovery.
methodData consisted of retrospective interviews with 20 professionals after the intervention, supplemented with prospective conversational data and field notes from workshops and follow-up meetings (n = 51). The data were analysed to construct patterns in line with interpretive description.
resultsAlthough the participants highly valued components of the intervention, the results reveal influencing mechanisms underlying the functioning of the intervention, including multiple objectives, unclear mandates and competing professional logics. The results also reveal variations in processing the intervention focused on differences in using and talking about intervention components.
conclusionsThe study indicates there are significant areas of ambiguity in understanding how theory-based complex clinical interventions work and in how interventions are socially constructed and co-created by professionals' experiences, assumptions about own professional practice, contextual conditions and the researchers' intentions. This process evaluation reveals insights into reasons for success or failure and contextual aspects associated with variations in outcomes. Thus, there is a need for further interpretive inquiry, and not only descriptive studies, of the multifaceted characters of complex clinical interventions and how the intervention components are actually shaped in constantly shifting contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.