Cargando…

How to measure person-centred practice – An analysis of reviews of the literature

BACKGROUND: Facilitation and collaboration differentiates person-centred practice (PcP) from biomedical practice. In PcP, a person-centred consultation requires clinicians to juggle three processes: facilitation, clinical reasoning and collaboration. How best to measure PcP in these processes remain...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Louw, Jakobus M., Marcus, Tessa S., Hugo, Johannes F.M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AOSIS 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7136800/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32129646
http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/phcfm.v12i1.2170
_version_ 1783518318890582016
author Louw, Jakobus M.
Marcus, Tessa S.
Hugo, Johannes F.M.
author_facet Louw, Jakobus M.
Marcus, Tessa S.
Hugo, Johannes F.M.
author_sort Louw, Jakobus M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Facilitation and collaboration differentiates person-centred practice (PcP) from biomedical practice. In PcP, a person-centred consultation requires clinicians to juggle three processes: facilitation, clinical reasoning and collaboration. How best to measure PcP in these processes remains a challenge. AIM: To assess the measurement of facilitation and collaboration in selected reviews of PcP instruments. METHODS: Ovid Medline and Google Scholar were searched for review articles evaluating measurement instruments of patient-centredness or person-centredness in the medical consultation. RESULTS: Six of the nine review articles were selected for analysis. Those articles considered the psychometric properties and rigour of evaluation of reviewed instruments. Mostly, the articles did not find instruments with good evidence of reliability and validity. Evaluations in South Africa rendered poor psychometric properties. Tools were often not transferable to other socio-cultural-linguistic contexts, both with and without adaptation. CONCLUSION: The multiplicity of measurement tools is a product of many dimensions of person-centredness, which can be approached from many perspectives and in many service scenarios inside and outside the medical consultation. Extensive research into the myriad instruments found no single valid and reliable measurement tool that can be recommended for general use. The best hope for developing one is to focus on a specific scenario, conduct a systematic literature review, combine the best items from existing tools, involve multiple disciplines and test the tool in real-life situations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7136800
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher AOSIS
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71368002020-04-13 How to measure person-centred practice – An analysis of reviews of the literature Louw, Jakobus M. Marcus, Tessa S. Hugo, Johannes F.M. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med Review Article BACKGROUND: Facilitation and collaboration differentiates person-centred practice (PcP) from biomedical practice. In PcP, a person-centred consultation requires clinicians to juggle three processes: facilitation, clinical reasoning and collaboration. How best to measure PcP in these processes remains a challenge. AIM: To assess the measurement of facilitation and collaboration in selected reviews of PcP instruments. METHODS: Ovid Medline and Google Scholar were searched for review articles evaluating measurement instruments of patient-centredness or person-centredness in the medical consultation. RESULTS: Six of the nine review articles were selected for analysis. Those articles considered the psychometric properties and rigour of evaluation of reviewed instruments. Mostly, the articles did not find instruments with good evidence of reliability and validity. Evaluations in South Africa rendered poor psychometric properties. Tools were often not transferable to other socio-cultural-linguistic contexts, both with and without adaptation. CONCLUSION: The multiplicity of measurement tools is a product of many dimensions of person-centredness, which can be approached from many perspectives and in many service scenarios inside and outside the medical consultation. Extensive research into the myriad instruments found no single valid and reliable measurement tool that can be recommended for general use. The best hope for developing one is to focus on a specific scenario, conduct a systematic literature review, combine the best items from existing tools, involve multiple disciplines and test the tool in real-life situations. AOSIS 2020-03-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7136800/ /pubmed/32129646 http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/phcfm.v12i1.2170 Text en © 2020. The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Licensee: AOSIS. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License.
spellingShingle Review Article
Louw, Jakobus M.
Marcus, Tessa S.
Hugo, Johannes F.M.
How to measure person-centred practice – An analysis of reviews of the literature
title How to measure person-centred practice – An analysis of reviews of the literature
title_full How to measure person-centred practice – An analysis of reviews of the literature
title_fullStr How to measure person-centred practice – An analysis of reviews of the literature
title_full_unstemmed How to measure person-centred practice – An analysis of reviews of the literature
title_short How to measure person-centred practice – An analysis of reviews of the literature
title_sort how to measure person-centred practice – an analysis of reviews of the literature
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7136800/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32129646
http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/phcfm.v12i1.2170
work_keys_str_mv AT louwjakobusm howtomeasurepersoncentredpracticeananalysisofreviewsoftheliterature
AT marcustessas howtomeasurepersoncentredpracticeananalysisofreviewsoftheliterature
AT hugojohannesfm howtomeasurepersoncentredpracticeananalysisofreviewsoftheliterature