What constitutes patient-centred care for women: a theoretical rapid review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women experience disparities in health care delivery and outcomes. Patient-centred care for women (PCCW) is needed. This study examined how PCC has been conceptualized and operationalized in women's health research. METHODS: We conducted a theoretical rapid review of PCCW in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and SCOPUS from 2008 to 2018 for studies involving women aged 18 years or greater with any condition, and analyzed data using an established 6-domain framework of patient-centred communication. RESULTS: We included 39 studies, which covered the following clinical areas: maternal care, cancer, diabetes, HIV, endometriosis, dementia, distal radius fracture, overactive bladder, and lupus erythematosus. The 34 (87.2%) studies that defined or described PCC varied in the PCC elements they addressed, and none addressed all 6 PCC domains. Common domains were exchanging information (25, 73.5%) and fostering the patient-clinician relationship (22, 64.7%). Fewer studies addressed making decisions (16, 47.1%), enabling patient self-management (15, 44.1%), responding to emotions (12, 35.3%), or managing uncertainty (1, 2.9%). Compared with mixed-gender studies, those comprised largely of women more frequently prioritized exchanging information above other domains. Few studies tested strategies to support PCCW or evaluated the impact of PCCW; those that did demonstrated beneficial impact on patient knowledge, satisfaction, well-being, self-care and clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Studies varied in how they conceptualized PCCW, and in many it was defined narrowly. Few studies examined how to implement or measure PCCW; thus, we lack insight on how to operationlize PCCW. Thus, further research is needed to confirm this, and whether PCCW differs across conditions, knowledge needed to inform policies, guidelines and measures aimed at improving health care and associated outcomes for women.
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 | 0.025 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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".