Person-Centered Care

Adams, Neal; Grieder, Diane

doi:10.1016/b978-012044155-6/50006-4

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It was previously stated that the patient–physician relationship and shared decision-making had a positive effect on the patient’s compliance with the treatment. It is a very common result that the patient’s relationship with the physician and the shared decision-making together increase the patient’s compliance with treatment since the patient–physician relationship is a process established to help the patient and it includes many elements such as knowledge, trust, loyalty, and respect (9,27). Shared decision-making is also a process that includes patient–physician cooperation and communication (28) that aims to establish a treatment option that reflects the patient’s preferences.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Mediating Role of Shared Decision-Making in the Effect of the Patient–Physician Relationship on Compliance With Treatment

Deniz

Akbolat

Çimen

et al. 2021

Journal of Patient Experience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: For a successful treatment outcome, the components of the treatment process are very important. The patient–physician relationship plays a key role in the successful therapeutic process and effective health service delivery. The patient’s compliance with the treatment directly affects the success of the treatment. Objective: This study aims to determine the effect of the patient–physician relationship on compliance with the treatment and to determine whether shared decision-making has an mediating role in this effect. Patient Involvement: Most of the study participants (55%) were younger than 35 and their average age was 30. The majority of the participants have an associate degree or higher education. Method: The study used a 4-part survey form as the data collection tool. The sample in this study consisted of 399 participants. To analyze the obtained data, Structural Equation Modeling was used by employing the Smart PLS3 software. Results: The results of the study show that the patient–physician relationship positively affects the patient’s compliance with the treatment and shared decision-making. In addition, shared decision-making positively affects the patient’s compliance with the treatment. The effect of the patient–physician relationship on compliance with treatment was strengthened through shared decision-making. Discussion: The results of the study revealed that patient–physician relationship and shared decision-making are two important factors in patients’ compliance with the treatment. Accordingly, the stronger the patient–physician relationship and the more patients participate in their treatment decisions, the higher their compliance with the treatment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Mediating Role of Shared Decision-Making in the Effect of the Patient–Physician Relationship on Compliance With Treatment

Deniz

Akbolat

Çimen

et al. 2021

Journal of Patient Experience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In assessment, this involves a greater emphasis on the individual's goals and strengths, an approach which has been developed and evaluated in the Strengths Model [ 85 ]. Other approaches which emphasise well-being over deficits in assessment processes are person-centred planning [ 86 , 87 ] and Wellness Recovery Action Planning [ 88 ]. What these have in common is an assumption that it is more productive to focus on what the person wants in their life and what they can do towards their own goals than on what the professional thinks is in the person's best interests and on what the person cannot do.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mental illness and well-being: the central importance of positive psychology and recovery approaches

Slade

2010

BMC Health Serv Res

522

428

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundA new evidence base is emerging, which focuses on well-being. This makes it possible for health services to orientate around promoting well-being as well as treating illness, and so to make a reality of the long-standing rhetoric that health is more than the absence of illness. The aim of this paper is to support the re-orientation of health services around promoting well-being. Mental health services are used as an example to illustrate the new knowledge skills which will be needed by health professionals.DiscussionNew forms of evidence give a triangulated understanding about the promotion of well-being in mental health services. The academic discipline of positive psychology is developing evidence-based interventions to improve well-being. This complements the results emerging from synthesising narratives about recovery from mental illness, which provide ecologically valid insights into the processes by which people experiencing mental illness can develop a purposeful and meaningful life. The implications for health professionals are explored. In relation to working with individuals, more emphasis on the person's own goals and strengths will be needed, with integration of interventions which promote well-being into routine clinical practice. In addition, a more societally-focussed role for professionals is envisaged, in which a central part of the job is to influence local and national policies and practices that impact on well-being.SummaryIf health services are to give primacy to increasing well-being, rather than to treating illness, then health workers need new approaches to working with individuals. For mental health services, this will involve the incorporation of emerging knowledge from recovery and from positive psychology into education and training for all mental health professionals, and changes to some long-established working practices.

show abstract

“…Systematic reviews (Doughty & Tse, 2005; Leamy et al 2011), randomised controlled trials (Greenfield et al 2008; Barbic et al 2009), intervention manuals (Clarke et al 2006; Bird et al 2011), scholarly overviews (Slade, 2009 c ; Andresen et al 2011) and practice guides (Davidson et al 2009; Slade, 2009 a ) all contribute to an emerging evidence base for recovery practice and outcomes. Consensus on best practice internationally is now emerging (Compagni et al 2007; Le Boutillier et al 2011), and links are being established with a wider and related literature on topics such as person-centred planning (Adams & Grieder, 2005), positive psychology (Resnick & Rosenheck, 2006) and well-being (Slade, 2010 b ). A key challenge in the development of this evidence base is ensuring that those people directly affected by the research – people who use mental health services and their carers – are involved as partners in the development of scientific knowledge, either through direct co-production (Boyle & Harris, 2009) or through collaboration (Slade et al 2010).…”

Section: Evidence Gapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

International differences in understanding recovery: systematic review

Slade

Leamy

Bacon

et al. 2012

Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci

279

264

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims. Mental health policy internationally varies in its support for recovery. The aims of this study were to validate an existing conceptual framework and then characterise by country the distribution, scientific foundations and emphasis in published recovery conceptualisations.Methods. Update and modification of a previously published systematic review and narrative synthesis of recovery conceptualisations published in English.Results. A total of 7431 studies were identified and 429 full papers reviewed, from which 105 conceptualisations in 115 papers were included and quality assessed using established rating scales. Recovery conceptualisations were identified from 11 individual countries, with 95 (91%) published in English-speaking countries, primarily the USA (47%) and the UK (25%). The scientific foundation was primarily qualitative research (53%), non-systematic literature reviews (24%) and position papers (12%). The conceptual framework was validated with the 18 new papers. Across the different countries, there was a relatively similar distribution of codings for each of five key recovery processes.Conclusions. Recovery as currently conceptualised in English-language publications is primarily based on qualitative studies and position papers from English-speaking countries. The conceptual framework was valid, but the development of recovery conceptualisations using a broader range of research designs within other cultures and non-majority populations is a research priority.

show abstract

Person-Centered Care

Cited by 14 publications

References 2 publications

The Mediating Role of Shared Decision-Making in the Effect of the Patient–Physician Relationship on Compliance With Treatment

The Mediating Role of Shared Decision-Making in the Effect of the Patient–Physician Relationship on Compliance With Treatment

Mental illness and well-being: the central importance of positive psychology and recovery approaches

International differences in understanding recovery: systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About