Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30621682›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2019

How is patient involvement measured in patient centeredness scales for health professionals? A systematic review of their measurement properties and content.

Eline Ree, Siri Wiig, Tanja Manser, Marianne Storm

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Assessing the environment for engagement in health services: The Audit for Consumer Engagement (ACE) tool.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Patient engagement in care: A scoping review of recently validated tools assessing patients' and healthcare professionals' preferences and experience.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
  11. A nationwide participatory programme to measure person-centred hospital care in Italy: Results and implications for continuous improvement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Inpatients' Perception of Patient-Centered Care in Guangdong Province, China: A Cross-Sectional Study.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    Review
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

4 authors.

Eline ReeSHARE - Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway. eline.ree@uis.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4268-5533
Siri WiigSHARE - Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.
Tanja ManserSHARE - Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.
Marianne StormSHARE - Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.

Funding

Norges Forskningsråd 256681/H10
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient centeredness is an important component of patient care and healthcare quality. Several scales exist to measure patient centeredness, and previous literature provides a critical appraisal of their measurement properties. However, limited knowledge exists regarding the content of the various scales in terms of what type of patient centeredness they represent and how they can be used for quality improvement. The aim of this study was to explore the measurement properties of patient centeredness scales and their content with a special focus on patient involvement, and assess whether and how they can be used for quality improvement.

methodsA systematic review of patient centeredness scales was conducted in Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and SCOPUS in April and May 2017. Inclusion criteria were limited to articles written in English published from 2005 to 2017. Eligible studies were critically appraised in terms of internal consistency and reliability, as well as their content, structural, and cross-cultural validity. Type of studies included were scale-development articles and validation studies of relevant scales, with healthcare personnel as respondents. We used directed content analysis to categorize the scales and items according to Tritter's conceptual framework for patient and public involvement.

resultsEleven scales reported in 22 articles were included. Most scales represented individual, indirect, and reactive patient involvement. Most scales included items that did not reflect patient centeredness directly, but rather organizational preconditions for patient centered practices. None of the scales included items explicitly reflecting the use of patient experiences of quality improvement.

conclusionsThere is a lack of patient centeredness scales focusing on direct and proactive involvement of patients in quality improvement. It would be useful to develop such instruments to further study the role of patient involvement in quality improvement in healthcare. Furthermore, they could be used as important tools in quality improvement interventions.

Indexed as

Patient Outcome AssessmentDelivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelHumansPatient ParticipationQuality ImprovementReproducibility of ResultsValidation Studies as TopicMeasurementPatient centerednessPatient involvementQuality improvementSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30621682
PMCPMC6323701

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.