MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896717180 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003267

Interventions for providers to promote a patient-centred approach in clinical consultations

2001· review· en· W2896717180 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Lewin, Zoë Skea, Vikki Entwistle, Merrick Zwarenstein, Judy Dick

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionCINAHLMedicineHealth careMEDLINENursingInclusion (mineral)Family medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Communication problems in health care may arise as a result of health care providers focusing on diseases and their management, rather than people, their lives and their health problems. Patient-centred approaches to care are increasingly advocated by consumers and clinicians and incorporated into training for health care providers. The effects of interventions that aim to promote patient-centred care need to be evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for health care providers that aim to promote patient-centred approaches in clinical consultations. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Medline (1966 - Dec 1999); Health Star (1975 - Dec 1999); PsycLit (1887- Dec 1999); Cinahl (1982 - Dec 1999); Embase (1985-Dec 1999) and the bibliographies of studies assessed for inclusion. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series studies of interventions for health care providers that promote patient-centred care in clinical consultations. Patient-centred care was defined as a philosophy of care that encourages: (a) shared control of the consultation, decisions about interventions or management of the health problems with the patient, and/or (b) a focus in the consultation on the patient as a whole person who has individual preferences situated within social contexts (in contrast to a focus in the consultation on a body part or disease). The participants were health care providers, including those in training. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data onto a standard form and assessed study quality for each study. We extracted all outcomes other than health care providers' knowledge, attitudes and intentions. MAIN RESULTS: 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies display considerable heterogeneity in terms of the interventions themselves, the health problems or health concerns on which the interventions focused, the comparisons made and the outcomes assessed. All included studies used training for health care providers as an element of the intervention. Ten studies evaluated training for providers only, while the remaining studies utilised multi-faceted interventions where training for providers was one of several components. The health care providers were mainly primary care physicians (general practitioners or family doctors) practising in community or hospital outpatient settings. In two studies, the providers also included nurses. There is fairly strong evidence to suggest that some interventions to promote patient-centred care in clinical consultations may lead to significant increases in the patient centredness of consultation processes. 12 of the 14 studies that assessed consultation processes showed improvements in some of these outcomes. There is also some evidence that training health care providers in patient-centred approaches may impact positively on patient satisfaction with care. Of the eleven studies that assessed patient satisfaction, six demonstrated significant differences in favour of the intervention group on one or more measures. Few studies examined health care behaviour or health status outcomes. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to promote patient-centred care within clinical consultations may significantly increase the patient centredness of care. However, there is limited and mixed evidence on the effects of such interventions on patient health care behaviours or health status; or on whether these interventions might be applicable to providers other than physicians. Further research is needed in these areas.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.121
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.315
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1210.315
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.323
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.144 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations517
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207