Defining elements of patient-centered care for therapeutic relationships: a literature review of common themes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale and aims: Patient-centered care is a recognized clinical method and ideal for patient - health professional relationships. Many definitions have influenced its evolution. For this research, our aim was: (1) to assess definitions and descriptions of patient-centered care to draw out elements of patient-centered care that are considered to be important markers of successful patient-centered care in the patient - health professional relationship and (2) to propose a set of elements that collectively reflect the diversity of ‘patient-centered’ definitions that describe the patient-professional relationship in this literature. A secondary aim was (3) to provide elements that could be used for development of a quality assessment tool.Methods: We conducted a critical interpretive review of patient-centered care and patient-centered communication literature, beginning with a critical synthesis that yielded 12 articles that introduced new theoretical and definitional work on patient-centered care and patient-centered communication. We used an inductive and iterative analysis process to identify and group common themes. We used operational language to describe these themes. Results: We identified 6 elements (each with 2 or more sub-elements) of the patient - health professional relationship that are considered important markers of successful patient-centered care (as found in this literature). The 6 elements are: (1) Engaging the Patient as a Whole Person, (2) Recognizing and Responding to Emotions, (3) Fostering a Therapeutic Alliance, (4) Promoting an Exchange of Information, (5) Sharing Decision-Making and (6) Enabling Continuity of Care, Self-Management and Patient Navigation. Conclusions: Comparable fundamental elements were common among most authors within this literature: we found that variation in theory was typically a matter of degree and language. This work contributes analyses towards greater theoretical consistency for conceptions of patient-centered care. It also provides avenues for future development of quality assurance benchmarks.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".