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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |