Wake up, wake up! It's me! It's my life! patient narratives on person-centeredness in the integrated care context: a qualitative study
Name:
Wake up, wake up! Its me! Its ...
Size:
243.8Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
main article
Issue Date
2014Subjects
integrated carepatient-centered care
patient experience
patient empowerment
shared decision-making
L510 Health & Welfare
person-centeredness
integrated health care systems
patient narratives
decision making
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Person-centered care emphasizes a holistic, humanistic approach that puts patients first, at the center of medical care. Person-centeredness is also considered a core element of integrated care. Yet typologies of integrated care mainly describe how patients fit within integrated services, rather than how services fit into the patient's world. Patient-centeredness has been commonly defined through physician's behaviors aimed at delivering patient-centered care. Yet, it is unclear how 'person-centeredness' is realized in integrated care through the patient voice. We aimed to explore patient narratives of person-centeredness in the integrated care context.Citation
Greenfield, G., Ignatowicz, A.M., Belsi, A., Pappas, Y., Car, J., Majeed, A., & Harris, M. (2014) 'Wake up, wake up! It's me! It's my life! patient narratives on person-centeredness in the integrated care context: a qualitative study'. BMC Health Services Research, 14 p619Publisher
BioMed CentralJournal
BMC Health Services ResearchPubMed ID
25471663PubMed Central ID
PMC4261575Additional Links
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/14/619http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25471663
Type
ArticleLanguage
enISSN
1472-6963Sponsors
Funding was provided by a grant from the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust Charity with some additional support from the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for Northwest LondonScopus Count
Collections
The following license files are associated with this item:
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Stage at diagnosis, survival and diagnostic delays for lung, colorectal, prostate and ovarian cancer: comparison between patients referred urgently from primary care and patients diagnosed through other routesBackground Very few studies have reported cancer outcomes of patients referred through different routes, despite the prominence of current UK cancer urgent referral guidance. Aim This study aimed to compare outcomes of cancer patients referred through the urgent referral guidance with those who were not, with respect to stage at diagnosis, survival, and delays in diagnosis. Design of study Analysis of hospital records. Setting One hospital trust in England Method The records of 889 patients diagnosed in 2000–2001 with one of four types of cancer were analysed: 409 with lung cancer; 239 with colorectal cancer; 146 with prostate cancer; and 95 with ovarian cancer. Outcome measures were diagnostic stage, survival, referral and secondary care delays. Results For lung cancer, urgent referrals had more advanced TNM (tumor, node, metastasis) stage than patients diagnosed through other routes (P = 0.035) and poorer survival (P = 0.020). There was no difference in stage or survival for the other cancers. For each cancer, a higher proportion of urgent referrals was seen within 2 weeks. Secondary care delays for lung and colorectal cancer were shorter for inter-specialty referrals. Conclusion For patients with lung cancer, the guidance appears to be prioritising those in the more advanced stages of disease. This was not the case for the other three cancers. Referral delays were shorter for patients urgently referred, as is the intention of the guidance. The avoidance of delays in outpatient diagnostics probably accounts for shorter secondary care delays for inter-specialty referrals.
-
Assessing patients' experience of integrated care: a survey of patient views in the North West London Integrated Care PilotDespite the importance of continuity of care and patient engagement, few studies have captured patients' views on integrated care. This study assesses patient experience in the Integrated Care Pilot in North West London with the aim to help clinicians and policymakers understand patients' acceptability of integrated care and design future initiatives.
-
Patients' perspectives on antiepileptic medication: relationships between beliefs about medicines and adherence among patients with epilepsy in UK primary careBACKGROUND: Nonadherence to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) can result in suboptimal outcomes for patients. AIM: This study aimed to assess the utility of a theory-based approach to understanding patient perspectives on AEDs and adherence. METHOD: Patients with epilepsy, identified by a GP case note review, were mailed validated questionnaires assessing their perceptions of AEDs and their adherence to them. RESULTS: Most (84.9%) of the 398 AED-treated respondents accepted the necessity of AEDs, but over half expressed doubts, with 55% disagreeing or uncertain about the statement 'I would prefer to take epilepsy medication than risk a seizure'. Over a third (36.4%) expressed strong concerns about the potential negative effects of AEDs. We used self-report and medication possession ratio to classify 36.4% of patients as nonadherent. Nonadherence was related to beliefs about medicines and implicit attitudes toward AEDs (p<0.05). Adherence-related attitudes toward AEDs were correlated with general beliefs about pharmaceuticals (BMQ General: General Harm, General Overuse, and General Benefit scales) and perceptions of personal sensitivity to medicines (PSM scale). CONCLUSION: We identified salient, adherence-related beliefs about AEDs. Patient-centered interventions to support medicine optimization for people with epilepsy should take account of these beliefs.
