6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A systematic review of impact of person-centred interventions for serious physical illness in terms of outcomes and costs

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Person-centred care (PCC) is being internationally recognised as a critical attribute of high-quality healthcare. The International Alliance of Patients Organisations defines PCC as care that is focused and organised around people, rather than disease. Focusing on delivery, we aimed to review and evaluate the evidence from interventions that aimed to deliver PCC for people with serious physical illness and identify models of PCC interventions.

          Methods

          Systematic review of literature using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, using the following key concepts: patient/person-centred care, family centred care, family based care, individualised care, holistic care, serious illness, chronic illness, long-term conditions from inception to April 2022. Due to heterogeneity of interventions and populations studied, narrative synthesis was conducted. Study quality was appraised using the Joanna Briggs checklist.

          Results

          We screened n=6156 papers. Seventy-two papers (reporting n=55 different studies) were retained in the review. Most of these studies (n=47) were randomised controlled trials. Our search yielded two main types of interventions: (1) studies with self-management components and (2) technology-based interventions. We synthesised findings across these two models:

          Self-management component: the interventions consisted of training of patients and/or caregivers or staff. Some studies reported that interventions had effect in reduction hospital admissions, improving quality of life and reducing costs of care.

          Technology-based interventions: consisted of mobile phone, mobile app, tablet/computer and video. Although some interventions showed improvements for self-efficacy, hospitalisations and length of stay, quality of life did not improve across most studies.

          Discussion

          PCC interventions using self-management have some effects in reducing costs of care and improving quality of life. Technology-based interventions improves self-efficacy but has no effect on quality of life. However, very few studies used self-management and technology approaches. Further work is needed to identify how self-management and technology approaches can be used to manage serious illness.

          PROSPERO registration number

          CRD42018108302.

          Related collections

          Most cited references107

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              What are the core elements of patient-centred care? A narrative review and synthesis of the literature from health policy, medicine and nursing.

              To identify the common, core elements of patient-centred care in the health policy, medical and nursing literature. Healthcare reform is being driven by the rhetoric around patient-centred care yet no common definition exists and few integrated reviews undertaken. Narrative review and synthesis. Key seminal texts and papers from patient organizations, policy documents, and medical and nursing studies which looked at patient-centred care in the acute care setting. Search sources included Medline, CINHAL, SCOPUS, and primary policy documents and texts covering the period from 1990-March 2010. A narrative review and synthesis was undertaken including empirical, descriptive, and discursive papers. Initially, generic search terms were used to capture relevant literature; the selection process was narrowed to seminal texts (Stage 1 of the review) and papers from three key areas (in Stage 2). In total, 60 papers were included in the review and synthesis. Seven were from health policy, 22 from medicine, and 31 from nursing literature. Few common definitions were found across the literature. Three core themes, however, were identified: patient participation and involvement, the relationship between the patient and the healthcare professional, and the context where care is delivered. Three core themes describing patient-centred care have emerged from the health policy, medical, and nursing literature. This may indicate a common conceptual source. Different professional groups tend to focus on or emphasize different elements within the themes. This may affect the success of implementing patient-centred care in practice. © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2022
                13 July 2022
                : 12
                : 7
                : e054386
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing Midwifery and Palliative Care , King's College London , London, UK
                [2 ]departmentCicely Saunders Institute for Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation , King's College London , London, UK
                [3 ]departmentSchool of Public Health and Family Medicine , University of Cape Town Faculty of Health Sciences , Cape Town, South Africa
                [4 ]departmentSchool of Applied Human Sciences , University of KwaZulu-Natal College of Humanities , Durban, South Africa
                [5 ]departmentCentre for Rural Health , University of KwaZulu-Natal , Durban, South Africa
                [6 ]departmentGlobal Health Institute , King's College London , London, UK
                [7 ]departmentDepartment of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation , King's College London , London, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Kennedy Bashan Nkhoma; kennedy.nkhoma@ 123456kcl.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2991-8160
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2667-1665
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3076-0783
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9653-8689
                Article
                bmjopen-2021-054386
                10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054386
                9280891
                35831052
                9857b6fe-1e6c-47d3-96e0-2b96ce50f49a
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 11 June 2021
                : 20 June 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Unit on Health;
                Award ID: GHRU 16/136/54
                Categories
                Health Services Research
                1506
                1704
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                health policy,quality in health care,clinical trials,health economics
                Medicine
                health policy, quality in health care, clinical trials, health economics

                Comments

                Comment on this article