Search

BackgroundFamily engagement in care for adult inpatients may improve shared decision making in the hospital and the competence and preparedness of informal caregivers to take over the care at home. An important strategy to involve family members in hospital care processes is to include them in (ward) rounds, also called 'family-centered rounds'(FCRs).ObjectivesSummarize the evidence regarding the added value of FCRs from the perspectives of patients, family, and healthcare professionals.MethodsA review protocol was registered a priori with PROSPERO (number CRD42022320915). The electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycInfo were searched for English-written systematic reviews with a focus on FCRs. The results and methods were presented in line with the PRISMA guidelines, and the methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using the adapted version of the AMSTAR tool.ResultsOf the 207 initial records, four systematic reviews were identified covering a total of 67 single studies, mainly performed in critical and pediatric care. Added values of FCR were described at review level, with references to single studies. All four systematic reviews reported an improvement in satisfaction among patients, family, and healthcare professionals, whereby satisfaction is linked to improved communication and interaction, improved situational understanding, inclusion of family in the decision-making process, and improved relationships within the care situation.ConclusionAlthough only limited research has been conducted on the value of FCRs in the adult non-critical care setting, and despite the existence of a variety of outcome measures, the results available from the pediatric and acute care setting are positive. The findings of the sole study in an adult non-critical patient population are in line with these results. Further research in adult non-critical care is required to verify its effects in this setting.

Crucial to its success is that physicians enhance their competence in Lifestyle Medicine and take on their role as Health Advocates in Health Counseling and Promotion (HC&P). However, studies on patients' views of lifestyle counseling in clinical practice demonstrate that many patients neither perceived a need to adopt a healthy lifestyle nor having had any discussion with their physician about their lifestyle. This study is part of a participatory action research project focusing on identifying areas of improvement for health promotion in the practice of internists. Within this project, we interviewed 28 internists from six different subspecialties of an academic medical center in the Netherlands. This study aims to gain insight into how internists understand their role in HC&P by a qualitative analysis of their beliefs and attitudes in the interview data. Participants claimed that promoting a healthy lifestyle is important. However, they also reflected a whole system of beliefs that led to an ambivalent attitude toward their role in HC&P. We demonstrate that little belief in the success of HC&P nurtured ambivalence about the internists' role and their tasks and responsibilities. Ambivalence appeared to be reinforced by beliefs about the ability and motivation of patients, the internists' motivational skills, and the patient-doctor relationship, and by barriers such as lack of time and collaboration with General Practitioners. When participants viewed HC&P as a part of their treatment and believed patients were motivated, they were less ambivalent about their role in HC&P. Based on our data we developed a conceptual framework that may inform the development of the competences of the Health Advocate role of internists in education and practice.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) usage has been shown to improve disease outcomes in people living with diabetes by facilitating better glycemic management. However, previous research has suggested that access to these devices can be influenced by nonmedical factors such as socioeconomic status and ethnicity. It is critical that equitable access to CGM devices is ensured as people from those groups experience poorer diabetes-related health outcomes. In this narrative review, we provide an overview of the various healthcare systems worldwide and how socioeconomic status, social context, and ethnicity shape device usage and the associated health outcomes. In general, we found that having a lower socioeconomic status and belonging to an ethnic minority group negatively impact CGM usage. While financial means proved to be an important mediator in this process, it was not the sole driver as disparities persisted even after adjustment for factors such as income and insurance status. Recommendations to increase CGM usage for people of a lower socioeconomic status and ethnic minorities include increasing the availability of financial, administrative, and educational support, for both patients and healthcare providers. However, recommendations will vary due to local country-specific circumstances, such as reimbursement criteria and healthcare ecosystems.