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 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)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.206
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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.206
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.006
Bibliometrics0.0380.030
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.497
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 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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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