Person-centred care: an overview of reviews
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Existing evidence suggests that a person-centred approach can improve coordination and access to health care and services. OBJECTIVES: This overview sought to: (1) identify and define components of person-centred care; (2) explore nursing and health-care provider behaviours that are person-centred; and (3) identify systems level supports required to enable person-centred care. METHODS: An overview of reviews was conducted to locate synthesized literature published between June 2005 and April 2014. Two independent reviewers screened, extracted data and quality appraised the sources. Results were synthesized narratively. RESULTS: A total of 46 articles were deemed relevant to this overview. This paper synthesizes the results of 43 of the 46 articles. A universal definition of person-centred care was not found, however; common components, associated health-care provider behaviours and the organizational supports required for person-centred care are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Key findings from this review outline that health-care providers and organizations need to promote person-centred care by engaging persons in partnerships, shared decision-making, and meaningful participation in health system improvement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it