Search

Background: Current treatments for people with obesity emphasise the need for person-centred approaches that consider complex biopsychosocial factors and value the lived experience of people when attempting to lose weight. Methods: Narrative interviews (n = 20) were conducted with people living with obesity to explore the causes of their weight gain and their expectations and engagement with treatment at a Weight Management Clinic. A mixed inductive and deductive qualitative analysis identified utterances that represented psychological constructs used to understand self-appraisal and health behaviour. A narrative analysis was used to situate these findings in the context of a participant's life story. Results: Locus of control was a dominant construct evidenced through a person's attributional style and self-efficacy. Transcripts represented a heightened sense of self-understanding and shifts in control, and styles of attribution and efficacy resulted in either stasis or self-actualisation. The Stages of Change model could be applied to narratives to ascertain a patient's motivation to access treatment. Importantly, narrative interviews also allowed for the consideration of how a person's systemic context influenced their weight. Conclusion: Narrative interaction supports both self- and shared understandings of the causes and consequences of obesity for individuals, in a non-blaming or shaming manner. It provides an opportunity to enhance engagement through tailored, person-centred treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Countries are adapting their health and social care systems to better meet the needs of growing populations with (multiple) chronic conditions. To guide this process, assessment of the 'patient experience' is becoming increasingly important. For this purpose, the Person‐Centred Coordinated Care Experience Questionnaire (P3CEQ) was developed in the United Kingdom, and translated into several languages. Aim: This study aimed to assess the internal and construct validity of the Dutch P3CEQ to capture the experience of person‐centred coordinated care of people with chronic conditions in the Netherlands. Participants and Methods: Adults with chronic conditions (N = 1098) completed the Dutch P3CEQ, measures of health literacy and patient activation, and reported the use and perceived quality of care services. Data analysis included Principal Component and reliability analysis (internal validity), analysis of variance and Student's T‐tests (construct validity). Results: The two‐component structure found was pretty much the same as in the UK validation study. Sociodemographic correlates also resembled those found in the United Kingdom. Women, persons who were less educated, less health‐literate or less activated experienced less person‐centred coordinated care. P3CEQ scores correlated positively with general practitioner performance scores and quality ratings of the total care received. Conclusion: The Dutch P3CEQ is a valid instrument to assess the experience of person‐centred coordinated care among people with chronic conditions in the Netherlands. Awareness of inequity and more attention to communication skills in professional training are needed to ensure that care professionals better recognize the needs of women, lower educated or less health‐literate persons, and improve their experiences of care. Patient Contribution: The P3CEQ has been developed in collaboration with a range of stakeholders. Eighteen persons with (multiple) chronic conditions participated as patient representatives and codesign experts in (four) codesign workshops. Other patient representatives participated in cognitive testing of the English‐language instrument. The usability of the P3CEQ to capture the experience of person‐centred coordinated care of older persons has been examined by interviewing 228 older European service users, including 13 living in the Netherlands, as part of the SUSTAIN project. More than a thousand persons with chronic conditions participated in the validation study of the Dutch P3CEQ. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To facilitate change for person‐centred care, there is a need to invest in measures to assess if and how healthcare systems are delivering care based on the principles of person‐centred care. This paper describes the first phase in developing an item bank to measure patients' experiences of person‐centred care. Aim: The aim was to translate, culturally adapt and evaluate candidate items to measure person‐centred care from the patient's perspective. Methods: The Centre for person‐centred care at Gothenburg university and the UK Person‐centred and coordinated care model informed our conceptual framework. The initial pool of item candidates originated from a previous systematic review where 855 items were identified. In this study, a mixed method design was used involving persons with experience as patients, caregivers, healthcare professionals and researchers in person‐centred care or questionnaire design (n = 84). The item analysis included two validation rounds using web questionnaires, a focus group and cognitive interviews. Results: From the initial pool, 155 items covering core domains and subdomains of person‐centred and coordinated care were selected for translation and qualitative item analysis. After translation, 44 items were excluded (duplicates). After the first validation round, 21 items were rephrased and 35 were excluded (due to low ratings, lack of comprehensibility, were duplicates or too specifically phrased). To reflect the ethical basis of person‐centred care, rewordings were also made to encompass the patient as an active partner in care and where communication and information goes two‐ways and care is co‐created. After the second round, 11 items were rephrased and 25 items were excluded (for being redundant/repetitive). Six new items were added (covering access to care, patient capabilities, mental well‐being and identifying goals). Conclusion: We have developed a first set of 57 items to proceed towards developing an item bank to measure the patient experiences of person‐centred care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence is emerging of the potential of person‐centred approaches to create partnerships between professionals and patients while also containing healthcare costs. This is important for enhancing outcomes in individuals with complex needs, who consistently report poor experiences with care. The shift towards person‐centred care (PCC) is, however, a radical departure from the norm, with increased expectations of both professional and patient. Although there have been studies on the ways in which health care professionals can modify practice to enhance PCC, not all patients welcome changes to their care delivery or understand the aim of the new approach. Without engagement and understanding from the patient, a PCC approach will fail to initiate. Few studies explore how, why and in what circumstances patients become more involved in their care and what professionals can do to enhance participation. We conducted a secondary analysis of qualitative data to examine this issue. Data were collected between 2014 and 2018 from primary care‐based PCC projects across the southwest of England. Supported by people with experience (practitioners and those receiving treatment), theory building workshops developed an explanatory framework that identified contextual factors and mechanisms likely to contribute to effective engagement. Our results show that engagement in a care partnership is achieved through trust and a patient's sense of candidacy. Shared understanding of purpose, clarity of expectations and power sharing were found to facilitate trusted relationships between professional and patient and encourage candidacy. Only then is it possible to develop goals that are meaningful to the patient. Our theory of engagement applies to professionals and patients alike but places the initial burden of responsibility on those who hold the most power: the professional and the system. This theory has the potential to explain patient engagement in PCC and a range of other service interventions, treatments and intervention research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: While several evaluation studies on (cost-)effectiveness of integrated care have been conducted in recent years, more insight is deemed necessary into integrated care from the perspective of service users. In the context of a European project on integrated care for older people living at home (SUSTAIN), this paper shares the experience and methodological reflections from applying a Patient Reported Experience Measure (PREM) on person-centred coordinated care -the P3CEQ- among this population. Methods: A combination of quantitative and qualitative data and analysis methods was used to assess the usability and the quality of applying a PREM among older people presenting complex care needs, using the P3CEQ delivery in SUSTAIN as a case study. 228 service users completed the P3CEQ and nine SUSTAIN researchers participated in a consultation about their experience administering the questionnaire. P3CEQ scores were analysed quantitatively using principal component analysis and multilevel linear regression. P3CEQ open responses and researcher notes collected when administering the questionnaire were thematically analysed. Results: Service user inclusion was high and most P3CEQ items had low non-response rates. Quantitative analysis and researcher experience indicate the relevance of faceto- face administration for obtaining such an amount of data in this population group. The presence of a carer increased inclusion of more vulnerable respondents, such as the cognitively impaired, but posed a challenge in data interpretation. Although several P3CEQ items were generally understood as intended by questionnaire developers, the analysis of open responses highlights how questions can lead to diverging and sometimes narrow interpretations by respondents. Cognitive impairment and a higher educational attainment were associated with lower levels of perceived person-centredness of care. Conclusion: This study shows essential preconditions to meaningfully collect and analyse PREM data on older peoples' experiences with integrated care: face-to-face administration away from care providers, collection of reasons for non-response and open comments providing nuances to answers, and multilevel modelling taking into account diversity in the target population. Several areas of improvement for future PREM use in this population have been identified: use of administration and coding guides, inclusion of clear and easy to understand definitions and examples illustrating what questions do and do not mean, measures of the expectations of personcentred coordinated care, and procedures ensuring sound ethical research. These methodological learnings can enhance future evaluation of integrated care from a service user perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]