Integrating patient values and preferences in healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative evidence

Author:

Tringale MichaelORCID,Stephen Genia,Boylan Anne-MarieORCID,Heneghan CarlORCID

Abstract

ObjectivesTo identify and thematically analyse how healthcare professionals (HCPs) integrate patient values and preferences (‘values integration’) in primary care for adults with non-communicable diseases (NCDs).DesignSystematic review and meta-aggregation methods were used for extraction, synthesis and analysis of qualitative evidence.Data sourcesRelevant records were sourced using keywords to search 12 databases (ASSIA, CINAHL, DARE, EMBASE, ERIC, Google Scholar, GreyLit, Ovid-MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science).Eligibility criteriaRecords needed to be published between 2000 and 2020 and report qualitative methods and findings in English involving HCP participants regarding primary care for adult patients.Data extraction and synthesisRelevant data including participant quotations, authors’ observations, interpretations and conclusions were extracted, synthesised and analysed in a phased approach using a modified version of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Data Extraction Tool, as well as EPPI Reviewer and NVivo software. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research was used to assess methodological quality of included records.ResultsThirty-one records involving >1032 HCP participants and 1823 HCP-patient encounters were reviewed. Findings included 143 approaches to values integration in clinical care, thematically analysed and synthesised into four themes: (1)approaches of concern; (2)approaches of competence; (3)approaches of communicationand (4)approaches of congruence. Confidence in the quality of included records was deemed high.ConclusionsHCPs incorporate patient values and preferences in healthcare through a variety of approaches including showing concern for the patient as a person, demonstrating competence at managing diseases, communicating with patients as partners and tailoring, adjusting and balancing overall care. Themes in this review provide a novel framework for understanding and addressing values integration in clinical care and provide useful insights for policymakers, educators and practitioners.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020166002.

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

General Medicine

Reference88 articles.

1. Users' Guides to the Medical Literature

2. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't

3. Evidence-Based medicine: what has happened in the past 50 years?;Mellis;J Paediatr Child Health,2015

4. Qualitative approaches to understanding patient preferences;Gooberman-Hill;Patient,2012

5. Exploring patient values in medical decision making: a qualitative study;Lee;PLoS One,2013

Cited by 14 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3