Patient-reported quality of care in anthroposophic and integrative medicine: A scoping review
| Autor: | Erik W. Baars, Evi B. Koster, Diana M. J. Delnoij |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | Health Care Governance (HCG) |
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
Coping (psychology)
medicine.medical_treatment media_common.quotation_subject Anthroposophy 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Nursing Anthroposophic medicine Patient-Centered Care medicine Humans Patient Reported Outcome Measures 030212 general & internal medicine Patient participation Empowerment Quality of Health Care media_common Integrative Medicine 030503 health policy & services Health services research General Medicine Patient Outcome Assessment Data extraction Patient Satisfaction Health Services Research Integrative medicine Patient Participation 0305 other medical science Psychology Qualitative research |
| Zdroj: | Patient Education and Counseling, 103(2), 276-285. Elsevier Ireland Ltd |
| ISSN: | 0738-3991 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.pec.2019.09.010 |
| Popis: | Objective To investigate how, and to what extent, patient-reported quality of care is measured in Anthroposophic and Integrative Medicine (AM/IM). Methods Scoping review of evaluation studies of patient-reported quality of care and development studies of PREMs and/or PROMs in AM/IM, using five stages of Arksey’s methodological framework. Search strategy: Literature search in twelve relevant databases. Data extraction: Basic information, added categories: Focus; PREMs/PROMs; Evaluation measures; Patient involvement; Use of results. Results Sixty-four included studies: 30 quantitative, 20 qualitative and 14 mixed-methods studies. Quantitative studies showed a wide variety of instruments and qualitative studies showed a meaningful list of evaluation themes. Most prevalent themes: Agency & Empowerment; Patient-provider relationship; Perceived effectiveness; Coping & Psychological functioning; Inner awareness; Meaning; and General wellbeing. Seven studies report concrete, coherent, patient-derived evaluation measures with emphasis on PROMs and/or PREMs. Conclusion Patient-reported quality of care was not measured in a standardised way. Knowledge gap: in general, quantitative studies lack patient-derived measures and qualitative studies lack development of concrete evaluation measures. Many AM/IM evaluation aspects connect with patient-centred care. Practice implication The international field of AM/IM would benefit from the development of a core set of validated PROMs and PREMs to further enhance its scientific underpinning. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full Text from ScienceDirect