Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42824623›Full record

ArticleLearning health systems2026

Moving Person-Centered Care Planning From Theory Into Practice: Patient Perspectives.

Claire Sachs, Mary F Henningfield, Sarina Schrager, Meagan Sulikowski, Michelle Robinson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Learning health systems, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Claire SachsTPAC Consulting and The Patient Advocate's Chronicle Washington DC USA.
Mary F HenningfieldWisconsin Research and Education Network, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison Wisconsin USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8258-9412
Sarina SchragerWisconsin Research and Education Network, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison Wisconsin USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1133-5589
Meagan SulikowskiWisconsin Research and Education Network, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison Wisconsin USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-2507-1057
Michelle RobinsonThe Foundation for Black Women's Wellness Madison Wisconsin USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Persons with multiple chronic conditions often receive care from a complicated network of multiple providers across multiple health systems unique to their conditions, needs, available resources, and insurance. Patients must navigate this healthcare system, which is a difficult and complicated process with just one provider or system, let alone multiple. Developing new solutions to overcome the systemic challenges within healthcare systems to provide high-quality, comprehensive, person-centered care for persons living with, or at risk for, multiple chronic conditions is critical. Person-centered care is needed, not only because it is the right and just approach to supporting patients, but because of the profound implications of the increasing prevalence of multiple chronic conditions on healthcare costs, caregiver burden, workforce productivity, and the broader social fabric. In this commentary, we present patient perspectives on a project that brought together diverse groups to identify potential solutions to challenges in implementation of person-centered care. Methods: Patients, families, and family caregivers are essential to the design and implementation of person-centered care planning for people with multiple chronic conditions. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) funded a project aimed at compiling best practices and discussing barriers. The project used a learning system approach to engage policy experts, clinicians, researchers, and persons with multiple chronic conditions, their families, and family caregivers. Four main activities included a technical expert panel, an environmental scan, a partner roundtable, and a learning collaborative. An in-person/hybrid summit held in March 2025 summarized activities and provided a forum for presentations to share activities of the project and conduct small group discussions on select topics. Results/Framework: We present patient narratives to complement content provided by the partner roundtables and other AHRQ-funded activities that provided foundational knowledge and diverse perspectives to promote person-centered care planning as standard practice for persons with multiple chronic conditions. Although many challenges to implementation of person-centered care were identified and discussed, learning from successful models and customization of models using components as appropriate may help overcome barriers. In particular, the need for culture change, use of meaningful measures, scalability, and other concepts must be addressed. Alignment of payment structures and policy support will be essential to ensuring that person-centered care can be advanced as an integral component of routine care. Conclusion/Next Steps: Multiple challenges to adoption of person-centered care planning have been identified. Future work by multidisciplinary teams (that must include patients, caregivers, policymakers, and clinicians) is needed to develop evidence-based feasible solutions to overcome these barriers in ways that respect the values and preferences of patients, families, and caregivers.

Indexed as

Agency for Healthcare Research and Qualitymultiple chronic conditionspatient experiencesPerson‐centered care planning

Identifiers

PMID42824623
PMCPMC13628701

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.