Impact of the person‐centred intervention guided self‐determination across healthcare settings—An integrated review.
Saved in:
| Title: | Impact of the person‐centred intervention guided self‐determination across healthcare settings—An integrated review. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Linnet Olesen, Mette, Jørgensen, Rikke |
| Source: | Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences. Mar2023, Vol. 37 Issue 1, p37-59. 23p. 1 Diagram, 4 Charts. |
| Subjects: | Hospitals, Online information services, CINAHL database, Psychology information storage & retrieval systems, Medical information storage & retrieval systems, Systematic reviews, Work, Patient-centered care, Medical care, Patients' attitudes, Autonomy (Psychology), Loneliness, Experiential learning, Thematic analysis, MEDLINE, Data analysis software |
| Abstract: | Aim: To review the evidence of the existing literature on the impact of guided self‐determination across methodologies in different healthcare settings. Methods: An integrated five‐stage review. Results: Forty‐five eligible papers were included. Guided self‐determination was applied in full‐ or small‐scale, or combined with another intervention or approach in different healthcare settings handling, for example diabetes, stroke survivorship, schizophrenia, attention‐deficit hyperactivity disorder and medical disorder, gynaecological and breast cancer, endometriosis, persons with chronic pain, persons in haemodialysis and intensive care survivors. The included studies covered 12 randomised trials, 26 qualitative and seven papers of different methodology. A statistically significant effect was found in three trials. Six main themes describe the qualitative findings across papers on patients: (1) Guided self‐determination reduces disease‐related loneliness, (2) Insight enables integration of life and disease, (3) Reflection sheets—appreciated but challenging tool to prompt insights and person‐specific knowledge, (4) New person‐specific knowledge enables person‐centred support, (5) Feeling seen and believed in a new and trusted relationship and (6) Exchange of knowledge enables the development of life skills. Four themes describe the healthcare professionals' experience: (1) Change of usual practice—a decision from above, (2) A new role—unlearning previous behaviour and need for support, (3) Reflection sheets as facilitators and barriers and (4) Discovering the benefits of changing to a person‐centred approach. Conclusion: Overall, guided self‐determination proved to have a great impact on patient important outcomes and was useful and well‐accepted by the majority of patients and healthcare professionals. Albeit guided self‐determination is not a 'one size fits all' method. Continuous training and supervision of professionals are a necessary mean when implementing guided self‐determination to enhance adoption and sustainability in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Aim: To review the evidence of the existing literature on the impact of guided self‐determination across methodologies in different healthcare settings. Methods: An integrated five‐stage review. Results: Forty‐five eligible papers were included. Guided self‐determination was applied in full‐ or small‐scale, or combined with another intervention or approach in different healthcare settings handling, for example diabetes, stroke survivorship, schizophrenia, attention‐deficit hyperactivity disorder and medical disorder, gynaecological and breast cancer, endometriosis, persons with chronic pain, persons in haemodialysis and intensive care survivors. The included studies covered 12 randomised trials, 26 qualitative and seven papers of different methodology. A statistically significant effect was found in three trials. Six main themes describe the qualitative findings across papers on patients: (1) Guided self‐determination reduces disease‐related loneliness, (2) Insight enables integration of life and disease, (3) Reflection sheets—appreciated but challenging tool to prompt insights and person‐specific knowledge, (4) New person‐specific knowledge enables person‐centred support, (5) Feeling seen and believed in a new and trusted relationship and (6) Exchange of knowledge enables the development of life skills. Four themes describe the healthcare professionals' experience: (1) Change of usual practice—a decision from above, (2) A new role—unlearning previous behaviour and need for support, (3) Reflection sheets as facilitators and barriers and (4) Discovering the benefits of changing to a person‐centred approach. Conclusion: Overall, guided self‐determination proved to have a great impact on patient important outcomes and was useful and well‐accepted by the majority of patients and healthcare professionals. Albeit guided self‐determination is not a 'one size fits all' method. Continuous training and supervision of professionals are a necessary mean when implementing guided self‐determination to enhance adoption and sustainability in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 02839318 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/scs.13138 |
