Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35322917›Full record

ArticleNursing philosophy : an international journal for healthcare professionals2022

Reflections of the collaborative care planning as a person-centred practice.

Ingela Jobe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nursing philosophy : an international journal for healthcare professionals, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Reflections of the collaborative care planning as a person-centred practice.Nursing philosophy : an international journal for healthcare professionals · 2022
    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

1 author.

Ingela JobeDepartment of Health Science, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0329-721X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ageing population is increasing worldwide with an increase in chronic disorders. At the same time, person-centred care has become a policy within both health and social care. To facilitate coordination and collaboration and integrate the older adult's perspective in the decision-making process the collaborative care planning process with the development of a written care plan can be used. In this study, the result of an interpreted analysis of four empirical studies of the collaborative care planning as a person-centred practice will be discussed and reflected on. A framework based on the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur's little ethics was used in the synthesis of the studies. The findings revealed two common threads: personhood and power asymmetry. Both challenges in achieving a person-centred collaborative care planning. Ricoeur's dialogical thinking and description of a person served as an underpinning in discussing and reflecting upon the findings of the interpreted synthesis. Collaborative care planning is a complex process. However, Ricoeur's philosophy contributed to a greater understanding of the collaborative care planning as a person-centred practice and accentuated that ethics, human values, and the older adults and care partners perspectives need to be given the same importance and considerations as the medical and social sciences perspectives for the collaborative care planning process to truly become person-centred.

Indexed as

Patient-Centered CareAgedDecision MakingHumanscollaborative care planningethicshealth and social careperson-centred practiceRicoeur

Identifiers

PMID35322917
PMCPMC9285900

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.