Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure the value the patients place on different aspects of person-centred care.
DESIGN: We systematically identified four attributes of person-centred care. We then measured their value to 923 people with either chronic pain or chronic lung disease over three discrete choice experiments (DCEs) about services to support self-management. We calculated the value of each attribute for all respondents and identified groups of people with similar preferences using latent class modelling.
SETTING: DCEs conducted online via a commercial survey company.
PARTICIPANTS: Adults with either chronic pain (two DCEs, n=517 and 206, respectively) or breathlessness due to chronic respiratory disease (n=200).
RESULTS: Participants were more likely to choose services with higher level person-centred attributes. They most valued services that took account of a person's current situation likelihood of selection increased by 16.9% (95% CI=15.4 to 18.3) and worked with the person on what they wanted to get from life (15.8%; 14.5 to 17.1). More personally relevant information was valued less than these (12.3%; 11.0 to 13.6). A friendly and personal communicative style was valued least (3.8%; 2.7 to 4.8). Latent class models indicated that a substantial minority of participants valued personally relevant information over the other attributes.
CONCLUSION: This is the first study to measure the value patients place on different aspects of person-centred care. Professional training needs to emphasise the substance of clinical communication-working responsively with individuals on what matters to them-as well as the style of its delivery.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | e015689 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | BMJ Open |
| Volume | 7 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| Early online date | 26 Apr 2017 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Apr 2017 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
Cite this
}
The value of different aspects of person-centred care : a series of discrete choice experiments in people with long-term conditions. / Burton, Christopher D; Entwistle, Vikki A; Elliott, Alison M; Krucien, Nicolas; Porteous, Terry; Ryan, Mandy.
In: BMJ Open, Vol. 7, No. 4, e015689, 04.2017.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - The value of different aspects of person-centred care
T2 - a series of discrete choice experiments in people with long-term conditions
AU - Burton, Christopher D
AU - Entwistle, Vikki A
AU - Elliott, Alison M
AU - Krucien, Nicolas
AU - Porteous, Terry
AU - Ryan, Mandy
N1 - © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.
PY - 2017/4
Y1 - 2017/4
N2 - OBJECTIVE: To measure the value the patients place on different aspects of person-centred care.DESIGN: We systematically identified four attributes of person-centred care. We then measured their value to 923 people with either chronic pain or chronic lung disease over three discrete choice experiments (DCEs) about services to support self-management. We calculated the value of each attribute for all respondents and identified groups of people with similar preferences using latent class modelling.SETTING: DCEs conducted online via a commercial survey company.PARTICIPANTS: Adults with either chronic pain (two DCEs, n=517 and 206, respectively) or breathlessness due to chronic respiratory disease (n=200).RESULTS: Participants were more likely to choose services with higher level person-centred attributes. They most valued services that took account of a person's current situation likelihood of selection increased by 16.9% (95% CI=15.4 to 18.3) and worked with the person on what they wanted to get from life (15.8%; 14.5 to 17.1). More personally relevant information was valued less than these (12.3%; 11.0 to 13.6). A friendly and personal communicative style was valued least (3.8%; 2.7 to 4.8). Latent class models indicated that a substantial minority of participants valued personally relevant information over the other attributes.CONCLUSION: This is the first study to measure the value patients place on different aspects of person-centred care. Professional training needs to emphasise the substance of clinical communication-working responsively with individuals on what matters to them-as well as the style of its delivery.
AB - OBJECTIVE: To measure the value the patients place on different aspects of person-centred care.DESIGN: We systematically identified four attributes of person-centred care. We then measured their value to 923 people with either chronic pain or chronic lung disease over three discrete choice experiments (DCEs) about services to support self-management. We calculated the value of each attribute for all respondents and identified groups of people with similar preferences using latent class modelling.SETTING: DCEs conducted online via a commercial survey company.PARTICIPANTS: Adults with either chronic pain (two DCEs, n=517 and 206, respectively) or breathlessness due to chronic respiratory disease (n=200).RESULTS: Participants were more likely to choose services with higher level person-centred attributes. They most valued services that took account of a person's current situation likelihood of selection increased by 16.9% (95% CI=15.4 to 18.3) and worked with the person on what they wanted to get from life (15.8%; 14.5 to 17.1). More personally relevant information was valued less than these (12.3%; 11.0 to 13.6). A friendly and personal communicative style was valued least (3.8%; 2.7 to 4.8). Latent class models indicated that a substantial minority of participants valued personally relevant information over the other attributes.CONCLUSION: This is the first study to measure the value patients place on different aspects of person-centred care. Professional training needs to emphasise the substance of clinical communication-working responsively with individuals on what matters to them-as well as the style of its delivery.
U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015689
DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015689
M3 - Article
VL - 7
JO - BMJ Open
JF - BMJ Open
SN - 2044-6055
IS - 4
M1 - e015689
ER -