MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110754613 · doi:10.1111/jan.14716

Integrative literature review of evidence‐based patient‐centred care guidelines

2020· review· en· W3110754613 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sihaam Jardien‐Baboo, Dalena van Rooyen, Esmeralda Ricks, Portia Jordan, Wilma ten Ham‐Baloyi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMEDLINEMedicineEvidence-based practiceEvidence-based medicineEvidence-based nursingPsychologyNursingAlternative medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To summarize what facilitates patient-centred care for adult patients in acute healthcare settings from evidence-based patient-centred care guidelines. DESIGN: An integrative literature review. DATA SOURCES: The following data sources were searched between 2002-2020: Citation databases: CINAHL, Medline, Biomed Central, Academic Search Complete, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition and Google Scholar. Guideline databases: US National Guideline Clearinghouse, Guidelines International Network, and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Websites of guideline developers: Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Royal College of Nurses, Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, New Zealand Guidelines Group, National Health and Medical Research Council, and Canadian Medical Association. REVIEW METHODS: Whittemore and Knafl's five-step integrative literature review: (1) identification of research problem; (2) search of the literature; (3) evaluation of data; (4) analysis of data; and (5) presentation of results. RESULTS: Following critical appraisal, nine guidelines were included for data extraction and synthesis. The following three groups of factors were found to facilitate patient-centred care: 1) Patient care practices: embracing values foundational to patient-centred care, optimal communication in all aspects of care, rendering basic nursing care practices, and family involvement; 2) Educational factors: staff and patient education; and 3) Organizational and policy factors: organizational and managerial support, organizational champions, healthy work environment, and organizational structures promoting interdisciplinary partnership. CONCLUSION: Evidence from included guidelines can be used by nurses, with the required support and buy-in from management, to promote patient-centred care. IMPACT: Patient-centred care is essential for quality care. No other literature review has been conducted in the English language to summarize evidence-based patient-centred care guidelines. Patient care practices and educational, organizational, and policy factors promote patient-centred care to improve quality of care and raise levels of awareness of patient-centred care among nursing staff and patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.497
GPT teacher head0.596
Teacher spread0.099 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207