Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33974518›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being2021

Breaking the patientification process - through co-creation of care, using old arctic survival knowledge.

Ulrika Sandén, Lars Harrysson, Hans Thulesius, Fredrik Nilsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Ulrika SandénDepartment of Design Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9520-0168
Lars HarryssonSchool of Social Work, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9652-5714
Hans ThulesiusDepartment of Medicine and Optometry, Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden.
Fredrik NilssonDepartment of Design Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5225-5174

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCancer research and connected innovation processes often lack a major component; patient participation. We revisit three studies (a-c) in order to explore how Momentary contentment theory may be used to improve patient participation and psychosocial health.

methodWe revisited data from the initial (a) classic grounded theory study on Momentary contentment, based on four years of observation and 14 interviews. It explains a way of dealing with life close to death and morbidity. In the imminence of danger the studied culture resembles the context of cancer patients. The two following studies used focus group interviews with (b) 19 cancer patients and (c) 17 relatives of cancer patients in southern Sweden.

resultsWe suggest a process where cancer patients are taught to be submissive and that the support they receive from health providers may be counterproductive to contentment; a patientification process. We present alternative ways for people to handle issues such as hope, waiting, knowledge gaps and healthcare navigation while living with cancer. We introduce an alternative to patientification and passive patients where active patients create their own safety and truly participates in their care.

conclusionsWe propose clinical studies to introduce such a shift from patentification to co-creation of care.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsDelivery of Health CareFocus GroupsGrounded TheoryHumansQualitative ResearchCancerco-creationdesign thinkinghealthhopeidentityinnovationpatient perspectiverehabilitationwaiting

Identifiers

PMID33974518
PMCPMC8118398

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.