MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412752153 · doi:10.32920/ihtp.v5i2.2551

Mapping the experiences of patient centered care for nurses in the role of patients: A scoping review

2025· review· en· W4412752153 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abukari Kwame

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Health Trends and Perspectives · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingPatient-centered careMedicinePsychologyMEDLINEPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Patient- or person-centred care (PCC) has become a core competency that healthcare professionals must develop to deliver high-quality care. PCC enhances positive patient perceptions of care, promoting patient safety and overall health outcomes. Yet, little is known about PCC from nurses who become patients. Aim. To map nurse patients’ experiences and perceptions of PCC and how their illness experiences influence nursing practice after recovery. Methods. A scoping review methodology was implemented. Scopus, PubMed, Ovid Medline, Web of Science, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched for relevant literature using a comprehensive list of keywords, including nurse patient, nurse-as-patient, person-centred care, person-focused care, hospital, experiences, etc. Thematic analysis was conducted on extracted data, and the results were reported narratively. Results. Thirty-seven (37) studies were included in this review. Four broad themes: experiences of PCC, care practices that promote PCC, the influence of illness experience on nursing practices, and nurse patients’ unique contextual issues were developed, which revealed that nurse patients experienced heightened fear, anxiety, denial, uncertainty, and discomfort when diagnosed with life-threatening illnesses due to their knowledge of the healthcare system. While navigating treatment, most nurse patients experience care that aligns with PCC dimensions (respecting patient dignity, treating patients as persons, providing adequate information, and effective communication). Others received care that deviated from PCC principles, including waiting for long periods to access treatment services, being stereotyped, not being provided enough information, and being less engaged in their care. Furthermore, nurse patients faced unique challenges, including role ambiguity and confidentiality and privacy concerns. Nonetheless, they promoted PCC in their nursing practice after recovery by advocating for patients, serving on healthcare boards, influencing policy change, and becoming peer educators. Conclusion. Research from different nurse patients is needed to deepen our understanding of PCC and how nurse patients’ illness experiences drive quality care and patient safety.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0190.024
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.443 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Health Trends and PerspectivesSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207