IntroductionPerson-centred care has become internationally recognised as a critical attribute of high-quality healthcare. However, the concept has been criticised for being poorly theorised and operationalised. Serious illness is especially aligned with the need for person-centredness, usually necessitating involvement of significant others, management of clinical uncertainty, high-quality communication and joint decision-making to deliver care concordant with patient preferences. This review aimed to identify and appraise the empirical evidence underpinning conceptualisations of ‘person-centredness’ for serious illness.MethodsSearch strategy conducted in May 2020. Databases: CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, Ovid Global Health, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. Free text search terms related to (1) person-centredness, (2) serious illness and (3) concept/practice. Tabulation, textual description and narrative synthesis were performed, and quality appraisal conducted using QualSyst tools. Santana et al’s person-centred care model (2018) was used to structure analysis.ResultsPRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow data: n=12,446 studies screened by title/abstract, n=144 full articles assessed for eligibility, n=18 studies retained. All studies (n=18) are from high-income countries, and are largely of high quality (median score 0.82). The findings suggest that person-centred care encompasses the patient and family being respected, given complete information, involved in decision-making and supported in their physical, psychological, social and existential needs. The studies highlight the importance of involving and supporting family/friends, promoting continuation of normality and self-identity, and structuring service organisation to enable care continuity.ConclusionPerson-centred healthcare must value the social network of patients, promote quality of life and reform structurally to improve patients’ experience interacting with the healthcare system. Staff must be supported to flexibly adapt skills, communication, routines or environments for individual patients. There remains a need for primary data investigating the meaning and practice of PCC in a greater diversity of diagnostic groups and settings, and a need to ground potential components of PCC within broader universal values and ethical theory.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundPerson-centred care (PCC) is being internationally recognised as a critical attribute of high-quality healthcare. The International Alliance of Patients Organisations defines PCC as care that is focused and organised around people, rather than disease. Focusing on delivery, we aimed to review and evaluate the evidence from interventions that aimed to deliver PCC for people with serious physical illness and identify models of PCC interventions.MethodsSystematic review of literature using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, using the following key concepts: patient/person-centred care, family centred care, family based care, individualised care, holistic care, serious illness, chronic illness, long-term conditions from inception to April 2022. Due to heterogeneity of interventions and populations studied, narrative synthesis was conducted. Study quality was appraised using the Joanna Briggs checklist.ResultsWe screened n=6156 papers. Seventy-two papers (reporting n=55 different studies) were retained in the review. Most of these studies (n=47) were randomised controlled trials. Our search yielded two main types of interventions: (1) studies with self-management components and (2) technology-based interventions. We synthesised findings across these two models:Self-management component: the interventions consisted of training of patients and/or caregivers or staff. Some studies reported that interventions had effect in reduction hospital admissions, improving quality of life and reducing costs of care.Technology-based interventions: consisted of mobile phone, mobile app, tablet/computer and video. Although some interventions showed improvements for self-efficacy, hospitalisations and length of stay, quality of life did not improve across most studies.DiscussionPCC interventions using self-management have some effects in reducing costs of care and improving quality of life. Technology-based interventions improves self-efficacy but has no effect on quality of life. However, very few studies used self-management and technology approaches. Further work is needed to identify how self-management and technology approaches can be used to manage serious illness.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018108302.

To achieve universal health coverage, health system strengthening (HSS) is required to support the of delivery of high-quality care. The aim of the National Institute for Health Research Global Research Unit on HeAlth System StrEngThening in Sub-Saharan Africa (ASSET) is to address this need in a four-year programme, with three healthcare platforms involving eight work-packages. Key to effective health system strengthening (HSS) is the pre-implementation phase of research where efforts focus on applying participatory methods to embed the research programme within the existing health system. To conceptualise the approach, we provide an overview of the key methods applied across work-package to address this important phase of research conducted between 2017 and 2021. Work-packages are being undertaken in publicly funded health systems in rural and urban areas in Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. Stakeholders including patients and their caregivers, community representatives, clinicians, managers, administrators, and policymakers are the main research participants. In each work-package, initial activities engage stakeholders and build relationships to ensure co-production and ownership of HSSIs. A mixed-methods approach is then applied to understand and address determinants of high-quality care delivery. Methods such as situation analysis, cross-sectional surveys, interviews and focus group discussions are adopted to each work-package aim and context. At the end of the pre-implementation phase, findings are disseminated using focus group discussions and participatory Theory of Change workshops where stakeholders from each work package use findings to select HSSIs and develop a programme theory. ASSET places a strong emphasis of the pre-implementation phase in order to provide an in-depth and systematic diagnosis of the existing heath system functioning, needs for strengthening and stakeholder engagement. This common approach will inform the design and evaluation of the HSSIs to increase effectiveness across work packages and contexts, to better understand what works, for whom, and how.