How is patient-centred care addressed in women’s health? A theoretical rapid review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Efforts are needed to reduce gendered inequities and improve health and well-being for women. Patient-centred care (PCC), an approach that informs and engages patients in their own health, is positively associated with improved care delivery, experiences and outcomes. This study aimed to describe how PCC for women (PCCW) has been conceptualised in research. METHODS: We conducted a theoretical rapid review of PCCW in four health conditions. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library and Joanna Briggs index for English-language articles published from January 2008 to February 2018 inclusive that investigated PCC and involved at least 50% women aged 18 or older. We analysed findings using a six-domain PCC framework, and reported findings with summary statistics and narrative descriptions. RESULTS: After screening 2872 unique search results, we reviewed 51 full-text articles, and included 14 (five family planning, three preventive care, four depression, one cardiovascular disease and one rehabilitation). Studies varied in how they assessed PCC. None examined all six PCC framework domains; least evaluated domains were addressing emotions, managing uncertainty and enabling self-management. Seven studies that investigated PCC outcomes found a positive association with appropriate health service use, disease remission, health self-efficacy and satisfaction with care. Differing views about PCC between patients and physicians, physician PCC attitudes and geographic affluence influenced PCC. No studies evaluated the influence of patient characteristics or tested interventions to support PCCW. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of research that has explored or evaluated PCCW in the conditions of interest. We excluded many studies because they arbitrarily labelled many topics as PCC, or simply concluded that PCC was needed. More research is needed to fully conceptualise and describe PCCW across different characteristics and conditions, and to test interventions that improve PCCW. Policies and incentives may also be needed to stimulate greater awareness and delivery of PCCW.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".