SynthesisAtencion primaria2020
[Questionnaires of person centered care in primary care. A systematic review].
Synthesis in Atencion primaria, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lessons Learned from the COVID-19 Pandemic in Nursing Homes: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Design and validation of an instrument to evaluate Person-Centered care in health services.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2024Article
- Person-centred care in individuals with stroke: a qualitative study using in-depth interviews.Annals of medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDespite the acknowledged importance of 'Person Centered Care' (PCC), there are obvious limitations for its determination and measurement due to the difficulty of its exact definition. The objective of our review is to identify valid tools that measure the PCC or some of its aspects in the field of Primary Health Care.
designSystematic review DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, PSYCinfo, IME-Biomedicine, LILACS and TESEO until May 31, 2018. SELECTION OF STUDIES: The inclusion criteria were: validation studies of questionnaires, systematic reviews of validation or other descriptive studies, all of which were carried out in the context of the Primary Health Care and that measured aspects of the PCC in professionals and/or patients. Two investigators independently reviewed the articles and their discrepancies were resolved by a third investigator. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were collected on the measured ACP aspects, target population, type of questionnaire, and data on validity and reliability.
results1,415 articles were located, to which 54 additional references were subsequently added via cross references. Finally, there were 75 articles that fulfilled all the criteria and there were 39 which had the tools identified and classified according to the dimensions analyzed.
conclusionsDue to the difficulty of measuring PCC as a whole, most of the articles refer only to one of its aspects or dimensions, with the patient's perspective prevailing over that of the professional. All these tools are, nevertheless, an important starting point for future questionnaires that attempt an integral approach to the PCC.
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.