Health professionals and patients’ perspectives on person-centred maternal and child healthcare in Burkina Faso
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The person-centred approach (PCA) is a promising avenue for care improvement. However, health professionals in Burkina Faso (hereafter referred to as caregivers) seem unprepared for taking into consideration patients' preferences and values in the context of healthcare provision. OBJECTIVE: To understand the meaning attributed to PCA in the Burkina Faso context of care and to identify the challenges related to its adoption from the perspective of caregivers and women service users (hereafter referred to as patients). METHODS: An ethnographic qualitative research design was used in this study. We conducted 31 semi-directed interviews with caregivers and patients from Koudougou (Burkina Faso) healthcare facilities. We also carried out direct observation of consultations. Data thematic analyses are based on the person-centred approach analysis framework. RESULTS: According to the caregivers and patients interviewed, the PCA in maternal and child healthcare in Burkina Faso includes the following five components used in our analytical framework: i) pregnancy follow-up consultations extend beyond examining physical health issues (biopsychosocial component), ii) healthcare professionals' mood affects the caregiver-patient relationship as well as care delivery (the healthcare professional as a person), iii) patients expect to be well received, listened to, and respected (the patient as a person), iv) healthcare professionals first acknowledge that both themselves and patients have power, rights but also responsibilities (sharing power, rights and responsibilities of professionals and patients), and v) healthcare professionals who are open to involving patients in decision-making about their care and patients asking to have a say in the organization of services (therapeutic alliance). Implementing each of these themes comes with challenges, such as i) talking about health problems in the presence of other women, especially those related to sexuality, even though they are common to parturient women (biopsychosocial component); ii) offering psychotherapy to healthcare professionals (healthcare professional as a person); iii) taking into consideration patients' cultural and linguistic differences (the patient as a person); iv) raising awareness among patients about their right to ask questions and healthcare professionals' duty to answer them (sharing power, and rights and responsibilities of professionals and patients); v) accepting the presence of birth attendants while avoiding traditional practices that are contrary to scientific recommendations (therapeutic alliance). CONCLUSION: Despite some context-specific particularities, the PCA is not new in the context of health care in Burkina Faso. However, its implementation can pose a number of challenges. There is a need to train healthcare professionals with a view to being sensitive to these particularities. This may also require organizational adjustments so as to create the physical and sociocultural environments that are conducive to taking into account the patient's perspective.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".