ArticleBMJ open2024
Are the content and usability of a new direct observation tool adequate for assessing competency in delivering person-centred care: a think-aloud study with patients and healthcare professionals in Sweden.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
objectiveTo evaluate the content and usability of a new direct observation tool for assessing competency in delivering person-centred care based on the Gothenburg Centre for Person-Centred Care (gPCC) framework.
designThis is a qualitative study using think-aloud techniques and retrospective probing interviews and analyzed using deductive content analysis.
settingSessions were conducted remotely via Zoom with participants in their homes or offices.
participants11 participants with lengthy experience of receiving, delivering and/or implementing gPCC were recruited using purposeful sampling and selected to represent a broad variety of stakeholders and potential end-users.
resultsParticipants generally considered the content of the four main domains of the tool, that is, person-centred care activities, clinician manner, clinician skills and person-centred care goals, to be comprehensive and relevant for assessing person-centred care in general and gPCC in particular. Some participants pointed to the need to expand person-centred care activities to better reflect the emphasis on eliciting patient resources/capabilities and psychosocial needs in the gPCC framework. Think-aloud analyses revealed some usability issues primarily regarding difficulties or uncertainties in understanding several words and in using the rating scale. Probing interviews indicated that these problems could be mitigated by improving written instructions regarding response options and by replacing some words. Participants generally were satisfied with the layout and structure of the tool, but some suggested enlarging font size and text spacing to improve readability.
conclusionThe tool appears to satisfactorily cover major person-centred care activities outlined in the gPCC framework. The inclusion of content concerning clinician manner and skills was seen as a relevant embellishment of the framework and as contributing to a more comprehensive assessment of clinician performance in the delivery of person-centred care. A revised version addressing observed content and usability issues will be tested for inter-rater and intra-rater reliability and for feasibility of use in healthcare education and quality improvement efforts.
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.