ArticleHealth science reports2019
A qualitative study on measuring patient-centered care: Perspectives from clinician-scientists and quality improvement experts.
Article in Health science reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Person-centered care assessment tool with a focus on quality healthcare: a systematic review of psychometric properties.BMC psychology · 2024Pooled it
- Reliability Generalization Study of the Person-Centered Care Assessment Tool.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Pooled it
- Challenges when measuring person-centred dementia care in nursing homes: a discussion paper.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Review
- Patient-centred care: a scoping review of measures of patient centredness in healthcare in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).Ecancermedicalscience · 2026Review
- Patient-centered outcomes and outcome measurements for people aged 65 years and older-a scoping review.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
- Development of person-centred quality indicators for aged care assessment services in Australia: A mixed methods study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Co-designing person-centred quality indicator implementation for primary care in Alberta: a consensus study.Research involvement and engagement · 2022Article
- Codesigning person-centred quality indicators with diverse communities: A qualitative patient engagement study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- Using implementation science to inform the integration of electronic patient-reported experience measures (ePREMs) into healthcare quality improvement: description of a theory-based application in primary care.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021Article
- Incorporating Patient Narratives to Enhance Audiological Care and Clinical Research Outcomes.American journal of audiology · 2021Article
- A qualitative study on measuring patient-centered care: Perspectives from clinician-scientists and quality improvement experts.Health science reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsPatient-centered care (PCC) benefits patients, health-care providers, and health-care systems by providing delivery of care that addresses patient values and needs while improving provider experiences, and by decreasing health-care expenditure. To improve PCC, health-care systems need to measure it. Recently, we developed a PCC framework that is evidence based and patient informed. The purpose of this study was to gather the perspective of clinician-scientists and quality improvement experts regarding the PCC domains included in the framework. Their perspectives were used to refine these domains, which ultimately will inform the development of PCC quality indicators.
methodsParticipants were recruited via expert and snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinician-scientists and quality improvement experts from Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom from October 2017 to January 2018. With the use of an interview guide developed using the PCC framework, interviews were audio recorded and transcribed for a thematic analysis using NVivo qualitative data analysis software. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify themes and subthemes.
resultsSixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted, which included four clinician-scientists and 12 quality improvement experts. Twelve of the participants were from Canada, three from the United Kingdom, and one from the United States. From the thematic analysis, three major themes were identified: (a) measurability of PCC, (b) practical considerations for implementing measurement, and (c) policy and practice implications. Participants discussed barriers and recommendations to improve and increase the clarity of the PCC domains in health system reporting, resulting in several future directions to refine and target specific PCC domains.
conclusionClinician-scientists and quality improvement experts provided key recommendations for the measurement of PCC. The perspectives of key stakeholders in PCC measurement will inform strategies for the implementation and uptake of patient-centered quality indicators in health-care systems. The views of these key experts can lay the foundation for the development of standardized measures of PCC, to ensure monitoring and improvement of 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.