Provider and Consumer Behaviors and their Interaction for Measuring Person-Centered Care.

Samantha M Hack, Anjana Muralidharan, Clayton H Brown, Alicia A Lucksted, Jennifer Patterson
{"title":"Provider and Consumer Behaviors and their Interaction for Measuring Person-Centered Care.","authors":"Samantha M Hack, Anjana Muralidharan, Clayton H Brown, Alicia A Lucksted, Jennifer Patterson","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Current research has found that higher rates of person-centered care (PCC) are associated with greater treatment adherence and positive treatment outcomes. However, the instruments used to access PCC primarily collect data on provider behavior, rather than consumer participation in PCC, despite the necessary co-equal and collaborative nature of PCC interactions.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of the current study was to test the hypotheses that: (1) the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS) consumer information subscale and the consumer decision making subscale are not correlated with the PPPC subscales and, (2) consumer perceptions of person-centeredness and of consumer involvement in care are significant independent explanatory variables for the theoretically or quantitatively grounded outcomes of therapeutic alliance, treatment adherence, and mental health care system mistrust.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cross-sectional survey data was collected from 82 mental health care consumers receiving services at two Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities. Participants completed surveys on perceptions of PCC, consumer involvement in care, therapeutic alliance, medication adherence, and mental health care system mistrust.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant correlation between the consumer participation and PCC subscales was mixed. Higher levels of PCC were associated with greater therapeutic alliance, less suspicion of mental health care systems, less perception of lack of support from providers, and less beliefs about group disparities in care. Consumer involvement was only significantly related to suspicion of mental health care systems.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>These findings may be a function of the locus of each outcome variable. When conducting PCC research investigators should consider how the outcomes they are examining inform the method through which they measure patient-centeredness.</p>","PeriodicalId":89680,"journal":{"name":"International journal of person centered medicine","volume":"7 1","pages":"14-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6709667/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of person centered medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Current research has found that higher rates of person-centered care (PCC) are associated with greater treatment adherence and positive treatment outcomes. However, the instruments used to access PCC primarily collect data on provider behavior, rather than consumer participation in PCC, despite the necessary co-equal and collaborative nature of PCC interactions.

Objectives: The objective of the current study was to test the hypotheses that: (1) the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS) consumer information subscale and the consumer decision making subscale are not correlated with the PPPC subscales and, (2) consumer perceptions of person-centeredness and of consumer involvement in care are significant independent explanatory variables for the theoretically or quantitatively grounded outcomes of therapeutic alliance, treatment adherence, and mental health care system mistrust.

Methods: Cross-sectional survey data was collected from 82 mental health care consumers receiving services at two Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities. Participants completed surveys on perceptions of PCC, consumer involvement in care, therapeutic alliance, medication adherence, and mental health care system mistrust.

Results: Significant correlation between the consumer participation and PCC subscales was mixed. Higher levels of PCC were associated with greater therapeutic alliance, less suspicion of mental health care systems, less perception of lack of support from providers, and less beliefs about group disparities in care. Consumer involvement was only significantly related to suspicion of mental health care systems.

Discussion and conclusions: These findings may be a function of the locus of each outcome variable. When conducting PCC research investigators should consider how the outcomes they are examining inform the method through which they measure patient-centeredness.

服务提供者和消费者的行为及其互动,以衡量以人为本的护理。
背景:目前的研究发现,以人为本的护理(PCC)率越高,治疗的依从性和治疗效果就越好。然而,尽管 "以人为中心的护理 "的互动具有必要的平等和协作性质,但用于了解 "以人为中心的护理 "的工具主要收集的是提供者行为的数据,而不是消费者参与 "以人为中心的护理 "的数据:本研究的目的是检验以下假设:(目的:本研究旨在验证以下假设:(1)消费者参与护理感知量表(PICS)的消费者信息分量表和消费者决策分量表与 PPPC 分量表没有相关性;(2)消费者对以人为本和消费者参与护理的感知是治疗联盟、坚持治疗和心理健康护理系统不信任等理论或量化结果的重要独立解释变量:方法:我们收集了在退伍军人健康管理局(VHA)两家机构接受服务的 82 名心理保健消费者的横断面调查数据。参与者完成了对 PCC、消费者参与护理、治疗联盟、服药依从性和心理保健系统不信任的看法的调查:消费者参与和 PCC 子量表之间的显著相关性参差不齐。较高水平的 PCC 与较高水平的治疗联盟、较少对精神健康医疗系统的怀疑、较少认为缺乏医疗服务提供者的支持以及较少认为医疗服务中存在群体差异有关。消费者参与仅与对精神健康医疗系统的怀疑有明显关系:这些发现可能与每个结果变量的定位有关。在进行 PCC 研究时,调查人员应考虑他们所研究的结果如何影响他们衡量以患者为中心的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信