Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34253669›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

What do patients expect? Assessing patient-centredness from the patients' perspective: an interview study.

Stefan Zeh, Eva Christalle, Jördis M Zill, Martin Härter, Andreas Block, Isabelle Scholl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. The Personalized Priority and Progress Questionnaire (PPPQ): A personalized instrument for quality of life and self-management for use in clinical trials and practice.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Stefan ZehDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany s.zeh@uke.de.ORCID 0000-0002-1748-3155
Eva ChristalleDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7813-5800
Jördis M ZillDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8995-5556
Martin HärterDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7443-9890
Andreas BlockDepartment of Oncology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3544-2194
Isabelle SchollDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7639-0880

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAlthough there has been much conceptual work on patient-centredness (PC), patients' perspectives on PC were neglected. In a previous study, participating patients rated the relevance of 16 dimensions of an integrative model of PC as high to very high. However, it remained unclear which specific behaviours described in the dimensions were considered most relevant. Thus, the aim of the current study was to further explore which of the specific behaviours described in the model are especially relevant for the high ratings in the previous study. METHODS AND

designWe conducted semistructured interviews with 20 patients with chronic diseases (16 females, 4 males, mean age: 52 years). Patients answered questions regarding their experiences in the German healthcare system and how optimal healthcare would look like from their perspective. Furthermore, patients were asked to reflect on the most important aspects which they had mentioned in the interview before. Data were analysed via content analysis.

resultsParticipants addressed many different aspects of PC, but mostly focused on three major themes: (1) time appropriate access to care, (2) competence, empathy and being taken seriously by HCPs, (3) HCPs' individual consideration of each patient's situation (eg, wishes and needs). Minor themes were: (1) taking a holistic perspective of the patient, (2) patient-centred communication, (3) integration of multidisciplinary treatment elements, (4) transparency regarding waiting time and (5) reduction of unequal access to care.

conclusionThis study enriches the construct of PC by depicting essential aspects of PC from the patients' perspective. The results allow prioritising strategies to implement patient-centred care. Thus, this study helps to pursue the ultimate goal of fostering patient-centred healthcare delivery in Germany.

Indexed as

CommunicationPatient-Centered CareChronic DiseaseEmpathyFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative Researchhealth policyhealth services administration & managementinternational health servicesquality in healthcare

Identifiers

PMID34253669
PMCPMC8276286

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.