Display options
Cite
Olson AW, Stratton TP, Isetts BJ, et al. Seeing the Elephant: A Systematic Scoping Review and Comparison of Patient-Centeredness Conceptualizations from Three Seminal Perspectives. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2021;14:973-986doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S299765.
Olson, A. W., Stratton, T. P., Isetts, B. J., Vaidyanathan, R., C Van Hooser, J., & Schommer, J. C. (2021). Seeing the Elephant: A Systematic Scoping Review and Comparison of Patient-Centeredness Conceptualizations from Three Seminal Perspectives. Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 14973-986. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S299765
Olson, Anthony W, et al. "Seeing the Elephant: A Systematic Scoping Review and Comparison of Patient-Centeredness Conceptualizations from Three Seminal Perspectives." Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare vol. 14 (2021): 973-986. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S299765
Olson AW, Stratton TP, Isetts BJ, Vaidyanathan R, C Van Hooser J, Schommer JC. Seeing the Elephant: A Systematic Scoping Review and Comparison of Patient-Centeredness Conceptualizations from Three Seminal Perspectives. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2021 Apr 29;14:973-986. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S299765. eCollection 2021. PMID: 33953566; PMCID: PMC8092624.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Multidiscip Healthc. 2021 Apr 29;14:973-986. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S299765. eCollection 2021.

Seeing the Elephant: A Systematic Scoping Review and Comparison of Patient-Centeredness Conceptualizations from Three Seminal Perspectives.

Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare

Anthony W Olson, Timothy P Stratton, Brian J Isetts, Rajiv Vaidyanathan, Jared C Van Hooser, Jon C Schommer

Affiliations

  1. Research Division, Essentia Institute of Rural Health, Duluth, MN, USA.
  2. Department of Pharmacy Practice and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Minnesota - College of Pharmacy, Duluth, MN, USA.
  3. Department of Pharmaceutical Care and Health Systems, University of Minnesota - College of Pharmacy, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
  4. Department of Marketing, University of Minnesota Duluth - Labovitz School of Business and Economics, Duluth, MN, USA.

PMID: 33953566 PMCID: PMC8092624 DOI: 10.2147/JMDH.S299765

Abstract

"Patient-Centeredness" (PC) is a theoretical construct made up of a diverse constellation of distinct concepts, processes, practices, and outcomes that have been developed, arranged, and prioritized heterogeneously by different communities of professional healthcare practice, research, and policy. It is bound together by a common ethos that puts the holistic individual at the functional and symbolic center of their care, a quality deemed essential for chronic disease management and health promotion. Several important contributions to the PC research space have adeptly integrated seminal PC conceptualizations to improve conceptual clarity, measurement, implementation, and evaluation in research and practice. This systematic scoping review builds on that work, but with a purpose to explicitly identify, compare, and contrast the seminal PC conceptualizations arising from the different healthcare professional groups. The rationale for this work is that a deeper examination of the underlying development and corresponding assumptions from each respective conceptualization will lead to a more informed understanding of and meaningful contributions to PC research and practice, especially for healthcare professional groups newer to the topic area like pharmacy. The literature search identified four seminal conceptualizations from the healthcare professions of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Policy. A compositional comparison across the seminal conceptualizations revealed a shared ethos but also six distinguishing features: (1) organizational structure; (2) predominant level of care; (3) methodological approach; (4) care setting origin; (5) outcomes of interest; and (6) language. The findings illuminate PC's stable theoretical foundations and distinctive nuances needed to appropriately understand, apply, and evaluate the construct's operationalization in contemporary healthcare research and practice. These considerations hold important implications for future research into the fundamental aims of healthcare, how it should look when practiced, and what should reasonably be required of it.

© 2021 Olson et al.

Keywords: health policy; medicine; nursing; patient-centeredness; pharmacy; systematic scoping review

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

  1. Lancet. 1955 Apr 2;268(6866):683-8 - PubMed
  2. BMJ. 2015 Feb 10;350:g7757 - PubMed
  3. Fam Pract. 1986 Mar;3(1):24-30 - PubMed
  4. Am J Psychiatry. 1980 May;137(5):535-44 - PubMed
  5. Fam Pract. 1984 Mar;1(1):3-8 - PubMed
  6. J Altern Complement Med. 2005;11 Suppl 1:S7-15 - PubMed
  7. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2009;6(1):27-35 - PubMed
  8. J Fam Pract. 2000 Sep;49(9):805-7 - PubMed
  9. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Mar 03;(3):CD010523 - PubMed
  10. J Clin Nurs. 2013 Feb;22(3-4):456-65 - PubMed
  11. Disabil Rehabil. 2007 Oct 30-Nov 15;29(20-21):1555-65 - PubMed
  12. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Dec 12;12:CD003267 - PubMed
  13. Fam Pract. 2004 Aug;21(4):458-68 - PubMed
  14. J Clin Nurs. 2018 Mar;27(5-6):e858-e872 - PubMed
  15. J Adv Nurs. 2013 Jan;69(1):4-15 - PubMed
  16. Nurs Crit Care. 2010 May-Jun;15(3):118-28 - PubMed
  17. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097 - PubMed
  18. PLoS One. 2015 Nov 05;10(11):e0141978 - PubMed
  19. BMJ. 2001 Oct 20;323(7318):908-11 - PubMed
  20. Ann Fam Med. 2011 Mar-Apr;9(2):155-64 - PubMed
  21. Gerontologist. 2010 Dec;50(6):834-46 - PubMed
  22. Health Expect. 2015 Apr;18(2):199-209 - PubMed
  23. J Clin Nurs. 2018 Aug;27(15-16):3056-3069 - PubMed
  24. BMJ. 2001 Feb 24;322(7284):468-72 - PubMed
  25. Soc Sci Med. 2005 Oct;61(7):1516-28 - PubMed
  26. BMJ. 2015 Feb 10;350:h181 - PubMed
  27. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2013 Apr 19;7:345-51 - PubMed
  28. West J Med. 1978 Jun;128(6):551-7 - PubMed
  29. J Fam Pract. 2000 Sep;49(9):796-804 - PubMed
  30. Int J Qual Health Care. 2017 Aug 1;29(4):541-547 - PubMed
  31. Soc Sci Med. 2000 Oct;51(7):1087-110 - PubMed
  32. J Clin Nurs. 2018 Jul;27(13-14):2847-2858 - PubMed
  33. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015 Sep;52(9):1454-62 - PubMed
  34. Nurse Educ Pract. 2018 May;30:20-26 - PubMed
  35. Fam Pract. 1984 Mar;1(1):30-6 - PubMed
  36. Int J Clin Pharm. 2015 Aug;37(4):551-4 - PubMed
  37. Nurs Res. 1972 May-Jun;21(3):264-9 - PubMed
  38. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2011 Dec;10(4):248-51 - PubMed
  39. JAMA. 2012 Feb 1;307(5):441-2 - PubMed
  40. J Clin Nurs. 2018 Jan;27(1-2):427-440 - PubMed
  41. Int J Nurs Pract. 2003 Jun;9(3):202-9 - PubMed
  42. Patient Educ Couns. 2003 Nov;51(3):197-206 - PubMed
  43. J Clin Nurs. 2012 Apr;21(7-8):1145-54 - PubMed
  44. Fam Pract. 1990 Mar;7(1):28-33 - PubMed
  45. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1969 May;17(82):269-76 - PubMed
  46. PLoS One. 2014 Sep 17;9(9):e107828 - PubMed
  47. Br J Nurs. 2010 Jul 22-Aug 11;19(14):912-7 - PubMed
  48. J Adv Nurs. 2006 Dec;56(5):472-9 - PubMed
  49. Aust Health Rev. 2013 Feb;37(1):19-25 - PubMed
  50. Ann Fam Med. 2007 Jul-Aug;5(4):336-44 - PubMed
  51. Res Theory Nurs Pract. 2003 Summer;17(2):101-16 - PubMed
  52. CMAJ. 1995 May 1;152(9):1423-33 - PubMed
  53. BMJ. 2001 Feb 24;322(7284):444-5 - PubMed

Publication Types