BackgroundPatient‐centred care has been advocated as a key component of high‐quality patient care, yet its meanings and related actions have been difficult to ascertain.ObjectiveTo map the use of different terms related to the process of giving patients a starring role in their own care and clarify the possible boundaries between terms that are often mixed.MethodsA literature search was conducted using different electronic databases. All records containing the search terms ‘patient engagement’, ‘patient activation’, ‘patient empowerment’, ‘patient involvement’, ‘patient adherence’, ‘patient compliance’ and ‘patient participation’ were collected. Identified literature was then analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS). The number of yearly publications, most productive countries, cross‐concepts articles and various scientific fields dealing with the multidisciplinary concepts were identified.ResultsOverall, 58 987 papers were analysed. Correspondence analysis revealed three temporal trends. The first period (2002–2004) focused on compliance and adherence, the second period (2006–2009) focused on the relationship between participation and involvement, and the third one (2010–2013) emphasized empowerment. Patient activation and patient engagement followed the temporal development trend connected to the ‘immediate future’.Discussion and conclusionsThe bibliometric trend suggests that the role of patient in the health‐care system is changing. In the last years, the patient was viewed as a passive receptor of medical prescription. To date, the need to consider patients as active partners of health‐care planning and delivery is growing. In particular, the term patient engagement appears promising, not only for its increasing growth of interest in the scholarly debate, but also because it offers a broader and better systemic conceptualization of the patients’ role in the fruition of health care. To build a shared vocabulary of terms and concepts related to the active role of patients in the health‐care process may be envisaged as the first operative step towards a concrete innovation of health‐care organizations and systems.

eHealth and mHealth interventions for type 2 diabetes are emerging as useful strategies to accomplish the goal of a high functioning integrated care system. However, mHealth and eHealth interventions in order to be successful need the clear endorsement from the healthcare professionals. This cross-sectional study included a sample of 93 Italian-speaking type 2 diabetes patients and demonstrated the role of the perceived ability of healthcare professionals to motivate patients' initiative in improving the level of their engagement and activation in type 2 diabetes self-management. The level of type 2 diabetes patients' activation resulted also in being a direct precursor of their attitude to the use of mHealth and eHealth. Furthermore, patient engagement has been demonstrated to be a mediator of the relationship between the perceived ability of healthcare professionals in motivating type 2 diabetes patients and patients' activation. Finally, type 2 diabetes patients adherence did not result in being a direct consequence of the frequency of mHealth and eHealth use. Patient adherence appeared to be directly influenced by the level of perceived healthcare professionals ability of motivating patients' autonomy. These results offer important insights into the psychosocial and organizational elements that impact on type 2 diabetes patients' activation in self-management and on their willingness to use mHealth and eHealth devices.

BackgroundThe issue of breaking bad news in assisted reproductive technology (ART) has been only partially explored by literature, and although some recommendations are available, specific guidelines are lacking. The present study aimed to explore the applicability of the oncologic SPIKES Protocol to the ART context.MethodsThirteen ART clinicians (7 gynecologists; 4 psychologists; 1 biologist; 1 obstetrician) completed the Critical Incidents Report (CIR) to describe the experience of delivering bad news in ART. The CIRs were first discussed with clinicians, then a focus group was created composed of 13 clinicians, one health communication expert and a patient to discuss the applicability of the six-step (SPIKES) Buckman Protocol to ART. The discussion was audiotaped, transcribed and analyzed with content analysis.ResultsThe SPIKES Protocol seems to fit ART consultations and participants found it practical and easy to understand. Some specificities were found for the ART context: the reiteration of bad news, the “patient” as a couple and the fact that ability to conceive is closely related to self-esteem, as well as to social and family identity. During the discussion of the SPIKES Protocol, participants highlighted the importance of: 1) providing a caring setting, by adding a reflection on the value of communication by phone; 2) exploring patients’ perceptions but also misinformation; 3) exploring patients’ desires and expectations, while balancing the need to be honest and clear; 4) applying Buckman’s suggestions for delivering information, and integrating clinical aspects with psychosocial ones; 5) managing and legitimizing patients’ emotions, in particular anger; 6) having a strategy for follow-up and supporting couples to make meaning of the ART experience.ConclusionThe proposal of a shared protocol for giving bad news in ART could be the starting point for training and experimental studies.

Cristina Marenghi and Maria Francesca Alvisi contributed equally to this work as co-first authors. Nicola Nicolai and Riccardo Valdagni contributed equally to this work. ABSTRACT Purpose:To evaluate the outcomes of active surveillance (AS) on patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) and to identify predictors of disease reclassification. Methods: In 2005, we defined an institutional AS protocol (Sorveglianza Attiva Istituto Nazionale Tumori [SAINT]), and we joined the Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study in 2007. Eligibility criteria included clinical stage ≤T2a, initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <10 ng/mL, and Gleason Pattern Score (GPS) ≤3 + 3 (both protocols); ≤25% positive cores with a maximum core length containing cancer ≤50% (SAINT); and ≤2 positive cores and PSA density <0.2 ng/mL/cm 3 (PRIAS). Switching to active treatment was advised for a worsening of GPS, increased positive cores, or PSA doubling time <3 years. Active treatment-free survival (ATFS) was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Factors associated with ATFS were evaluated with a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. Results: A total of 818 patients were included: 200 in SAINT, 530 in PRIAS, and 88 in personalized AS monitoring. Active treatment-free survival was 50% after a median follow-up of 60 months. A total of 404/818 patients (49.4%) discontinued AS: 274 for biopsy-related reclassification, 121/404 (30%) for off-protocol reasons, 9/404 (2.2%) because of anxiety. Biopsy reclassification was associated with PSA density (hazard ratio [HR] 1.8), maximum percentage of core involvement (HR 1.5), positive cores at diagnostic biopsy (HR 1.6), older age (HR 1.5), and prostate volume (HR 0.6) (all p<0.01). Patients from SAINT were significantly more likely to discontinue AS than were the patients from PRIAS (HR 1.65, p<0.0001). Conclusions: Five years after diagnosis, 50% of patients with early PCa were spared from active treatment. Wide inclusion criteria are associated with lower ATFS. However, at preliminary analysis, this does not seem to affect the probability of unfavorable pathology.

No abstract