Cargando…

Whole person assessment for family medicine: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES: To identify and evaluate clinical approaches to whole person assessment (WPA) that are translatable to family medicine regarding feasibility, quality and alignment with theoretical models of whole person care (WPC). DESIGN: Systematic literature review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Psy...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thomas, Hayley Robyn, Best, Megan, Chua, David, King, David, Lynch, Johanna
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10124221/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37080631
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065961
_version_ 1785029793961476096
author Thomas, Hayley Robyn
Best, Megan
Chua, David
King, David
Lynch, Johanna
author_facet Thomas, Hayley Robyn
Best, Megan
Chua, David
King, David
Lynch, Johanna
author_sort Thomas, Hayley Robyn
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To identify and evaluate clinical approaches to whole person assessment (WPA) that are translatable to family medicine regarding feasibility, quality and alignment with theoretical models of whole person care (WPC). DESIGN: Systematic literature review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and ATLA Religion databases were searched through 9 March 2020, with additional handsearches. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: English language clinical assessments of multiple domains; which involve patient–clinician interaction and are translatable to general practice (GP); from the fields of medicine, allied health, nursing, mental health and pastoral care. Tools designed for single diseases or symptoms, for outcome rather than clinical assessment or with outdated classification systems were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We appraised the quality of included papers using Johanna Briggs’ Institute Checklists and Terwee’s criteria for validation studies. Clinical assessments’ alignment with theoretical WPC, feasibility for adaptation to GP and quality were examined. We analysed extracted data using framework synthesis. RESULTS: Searches retrieved 7535 non-duplicate items. Fifty-nine were included after screening, describing 42 WPA methods and representing multiple disciplines, purposes and formats. All included assessments aligned partially with models of WPC, but most did not adequately encompass all aspects of WPC. Robustness varied significantly and was often inadequately described. We judged none of the identified assessments to be ideal as a multipurpose WPA in GP. Some could be used for specific purposes, such as elicitation of patient perspectives or complexity assessment. CONCLUSIONS: While no WPAs were found that were sufficient for broad implementation in GP, some approaches may be suitable with adaptation and evaluation. Strengths of existing approaches could inform WPA development in future. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020164417.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10124221
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101242212023-04-25 Whole person assessment for family medicine: a systematic review Thomas, Hayley Robyn Best, Megan Chua, David King, David Lynch, Johanna BMJ Open General practice / Family practice OBJECTIVES: To identify and evaluate clinical approaches to whole person assessment (WPA) that are translatable to family medicine regarding feasibility, quality and alignment with theoretical models of whole person care (WPC). DESIGN: Systematic literature review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and ATLA Religion databases were searched through 9 March 2020, with additional handsearches. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: English language clinical assessments of multiple domains; which involve patient–clinician interaction and are translatable to general practice (GP); from the fields of medicine, allied health, nursing, mental health and pastoral care. Tools designed for single diseases or symptoms, for outcome rather than clinical assessment or with outdated classification systems were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We appraised the quality of included papers using Johanna Briggs’ Institute Checklists and Terwee’s criteria for validation studies. Clinical assessments’ alignment with theoretical WPC, feasibility for adaptation to GP and quality were examined. We analysed extracted data using framework synthesis. RESULTS: Searches retrieved 7535 non-duplicate items. Fifty-nine were included after screening, describing 42 WPA methods and representing multiple disciplines, purposes and formats. All included assessments aligned partially with models of WPC, but most did not adequately encompass all aspects of WPC. Robustness varied significantly and was often inadequately described. We judged none of the identified assessments to be ideal as a multipurpose WPA in GP. Some could be used for specific purposes, such as elicitation of patient perspectives or complexity assessment. CONCLUSIONS: While no WPAs were found that were sufficient for broad implementation in GP, some approaches may be suitable with adaptation and evaluation. Strengths of existing approaches could inform WPA development in future. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020164417. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-04-20 /pmc/articles/PMC10124221/ /pubmed/37080631 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065961 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle General practice / Family practice
Thomas, Hayley Robyn
Best, Megan
Chua, David
King, David
Lynch, Johanna
Whole person assessment for family medicine: a systematic review
title Whole person assessment for family medicine: a systematic review
title_full Whole person assessment for family medicine: a systematic review
title_fullStr Whole person assessment for family medicine: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Whole person assessment for family medicine: a systematic review
title_short Whole person assessment for family medicine: a systematic review
title_sort whole person assessment for family medicine: a systematic review
topic General practice / Family practice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10124221/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37080631
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065961
work_keys_str_mv AT thomashayleyrobyn wholepersonassessmentforfamilymedicineasystematicreview
AT bestmegan wholepersonassessmentforfamilymedicineasystematicreview
AT chuadavid wholepersonassessmentforfamilymedicineasystematicreview
AT kingdavid wholepersonassessmentforfamilymedicineasystematicreview
AT lynchjohanna wholepersonassessmentforfamilymedicineasystematicreview