Views of patients with multi-morbidity on what is important for patient-centered care in the primary care setting.


Journal

BMC family practice
ISSN: 1471-2296
Titre abrégé: BMC Fam Pract
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967792

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
26 04 2020
Historique:
received: 27 08 2019
accepted: 15 04 2020
entrez: 28 4 2020
pubmed: 28 4 2020
medline: 29 6 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Patient-centered care (PCC) has been proposed as the way forward in improving primary care for patients with multi-morbidity. However, it is not clear what PCC exactly looks like in practice for patients with multi-morbidity. A better understanding of multi-morbid patients' views on what PCC should look like and which elements are most important may help to improve care delivery for this vulnerable population. The present study thus aimed to identify views of patients with multi-morbidity on the relative importance of PCC aspects in a Dutch primary care setting. Interviews were conducted with 16 patients with multi-morbidity using Q-methodology, which combines quantitative and qualitative analyses. The participants ranked 28 statements about the eight dimensions of PCC (patients' preferences, information and education, access to care, emotional support, family and friends, continuity and transition, physical comfort, and coordination of care) by relative importance. By-person factor analysis using centroid factor extraction and varimax rotation were used to reveal factors that represent viewpoints. Qualitative interview data were used to interpret the viewpoints. The analyses revealed three factors representing three distinct viewpoints of patients with multi-morbidity on what is important for patient-centered care in the primary care setting. Patients with viewpoint 1 are prepared proactive patients who seem to be well-off and want to be in charge of their own care. To do so, they seek medical information and prefer to be supported by a strongly coordinated multidisciplinary team of healthcare professionals. Patients with viewpoint 2 are everyday patients who visit GPs and require well-coordinated, respectful, and supportive care. Patients with viewpoint 3 are vulnerable patients who are less resourceful in terms of communication skills and finances, and thus require accessible care and professionals taking the lead while treating them with dignity and respect. The findings of this study suggest that not all patients with multi-morbidity require the same type of care delivery, and that not all aspects of PCC delivery are equally important to all patients.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Patient-centered care (PCC) has been proposed as the way forward in improving primary care for patients with multi-morbidity. However, it is not clear what PCC exactly looks like in practice for patients with multi-morbidity. A better understanding of multi-morbid patients' views on what PCC should look like and which elements are most important may help to improve care delivery for this vulnerable population. The present study thus aimed to identify views of patients with multi-morbidity on the relative importance of PCC aspects in a Dutch primary care setting.
METHODS
Interviews were conducted with 16 patients with multi-morbidity using Q-methodology, which combines quantitative and qualitative analyses. The participants ranked 28 statements about the eight dimensions of PCC (patients' preferences, information and education, access to care, emotional support, family and friends, continuity and transition, physical comfort, and coordination of care) by relative importance. By-person factor analysis using centroid factor extraction and varimax rotation were used to reveal factors that represent viewpoints. Qualitative interview data were used to interpret the viewpoints.
RESULTS
The analyses revealed three factors representing three distinct viewpoints of patients with multi-morbidity on what is important for patient-centered care in the primary care setting. Patients with viewpoint 1 are prepared proactive patients who seem to be well-off and want to be in charge of their own care. To do so, they seek medical information and prefer to be supported by a strongly coordinated multidisciplinary team of healthcare professionals. Patients with viewpoint 2 are everyday patients who visit GPs and require well-coordinated, respectful, and supportive care. Patients with viewpoint 3 are vulnerable patients who are less resourceful in terms of communication skills and finances, and thus require accessible care and professionals taking the lead while treating them with dignity and respect.
CONCLUSION
The findings of this study suggest that not all patients with multi-morbidity require the same type of care delivery, and that not all aspects of PCC delivery are equally important to all patients.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32336277
doi: 10.1186/s12875-020-01144-7
pii: 10.1186/s12875-020-01144-7
pmc: PMC7184691
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

71

Subventions

Organisme : CZ
ID : not applicable
Pays : International

Références

Int J Qual Health Care. 2013 Jul;25(3):261-9
pubmed: 23343990
BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Aug 17;12:261
pubmed: 22900589
Health Aff (Millwood). 2015 Mar;34(3):528-32
pubmed: 25732503
BMC Fam Pract. 2019 Dec 27;20(1):179
pubmed: 31881942
PeerJ. 2016 Oct 6;4:e2522
pubmed: 27761324
J Affect Disord. 2017 Oct 15;221:36-46
pubmed: 28628766
Musculoskeletal Care. 2017 Dec;15(4):324-332
pubmed: 27925370
Scand J Prim Health Care. 2015 Jun;33(2):121-6
pubmed: 26158584
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Sep 16;15:385
pubmed: 26373841
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Jan 8;19(1):13
pubmed: 30621688
Thorax. 2002 May;57(5):412-6
pubmed: 11978917
PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e25987
pubmed: 22028802
BMC Nephrol. 2015 May 28;16:74
pubmed: 26018544
J Comorb. 2016 Feb 17;6(1):4-11
pubmed: 29090166
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jul 11;17(1):472
pubmed: 28693569
BMC Public Health. 2012 Aug 30;12:715
pubmed: 22935268
Chest. 2005 Apr;127(4):1205-11
pubmed: 15821196
Health Aff (Millwood). 2014 Dec;33(12):2247-55
pubmed: 25410260
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004 Sep 20;2:51
pubmed: 15380021
Fam Pract. 2008 Aug;25(4):287-93
pubmed: 18628243
Soc Sci Med. 2006 Nov;63(9):2341-53
pubmed: 16875768
J Gen Intern Med. 2004 Nov;19(11):1069-79
pubmed: 15566435
BMC Fam Pract. 2013 Nov 14;14:172
pubmed: 24229342
Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2017 Mar - Apr;45:1-6
pubmed: 28274332
Med Care. 2011 Jan;49(1):37-45
pubmed: 21102357
BMC Public Health. 2014 Jan 06;14:2
pubmed: 24387106
J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Oct;30(10):1497-504
pubmed: 25933625
Med Care Res Rev. 2013 Aug;70(4):351-79
pubmed: 23169897
BMC Public Health. 2012 Jan 25;12:80
pubmed: 22276600
Health Syst Transit. 2016 Mar;18(2):1-240
pubmed: 27467715
Ageing Res Rev. 2019 Aug;53:100903
pubmed: 31048032

Auteurs

Sanne Jannick Kuipers (SJ)

Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. kuipers@eshpm.eur.nl.

Anna Petra Nieboer (AP)

Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Jane Murray Cramm (JM)

Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH