Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33953566›Full record

ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2021

Seeing the Elephant: A Systematic Scoping Review and Comparison of Patient-Centeredness Conceptualizations from Three Seminal Perspectives.

Anthony W Olson, Timothy P Stratton, Brian J Isetts, Rajiv Vaidyanathan, Jared C Van Hooser, Jon C Schommer

Erratum issuedAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. User Involvement in Transition Care in Virtual 4-Party Meetings: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Anthony W OlsonResearch Division, Essentia Institute of Rural Health, Duluth, MN, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4026-4716
Timothy P StrattonDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Minnesota - College of Pharmacy, Duluth, MN, USA.
Brian J IsettsDepartment of Pharmaceutical Care and Health Systems, University of Minnesota - College of Pharmacy, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Rajiv VaidyanathanDepartment of Marketing, University of Minnesota Duluth - Labovitz School of Business and Economics, Duluth, MN, USA.
Jared C Van HooserDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Minnesota - College of Pharmacy, Duluth, MN, USA.
Jon C SchommerDepartment of Pharmaceutical Care and Health Systems, University of Minnesota - College of Pharmacy, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

"Patient-Centeredness" (PC) is a theoretical construct made up of a diverse constellation of distinct concepts, processes, practices, and outcomes that have been developed, arranged, and prioritized heterogeneously by different communities of professional healthcare practice, research, and policy. It is bound together by a common ethos that puts the holistic individual at the functional and symbolic center of their care, a quality deemed essential for chronic disease management and health promotion. Several important contributions to the PC research space have adeptly integrated seminal PC conceptualizations to improve conceptual clarity, measurement, implementation, and evaluation in research and practice. This systematic scoping review builds on that work, but with a purpose to explicitly identify, compare, and contrast the seminal PC conceptualizations arising from the different healthcare professional groups. The rationale for this work is that a deeper examination of the underlying development and corresponding assumptions from each respective conceptualization will lead to a more informed understanding of and meaningful contributions to PC research and practice, especially for healthcare professional groups newer to the topic area like pharmacy. The literature search identified four seminal conceptualizations from the healthcare professions of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Policy. A compositional comparison across the seminal conceptualizations revealed a shared ethos but also six distinguishing features: (1) organizational structure; (2) predominant level of care; (3) methodological approach; (4) care setting origin; (5) outcomes of interest; and (6) language. The findings illuminate PC's stable theoretical foundations and distinctive nuances needed to appropriately understand, apply, and evaluate the construct's operationalization in contemporary healthcare research and practice. These considerations hold important implications for future research into the fundamental aims of healthcare, how it should look when practiced, and what should reasonably be required of it.

Indexed as

health policymedicinenursingpatient-centerednesspharmacysystematic scoping review

Identifiers

PMID33953566
PMCPMC8092624

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.