Patient-reported quality of care in anthroposophic and integrative medicine: A scoping review |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Anthroposophic Healthcare, University of Applied Sciences Leiden, Leiden, the Netherlands;2. Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands;1. Medical Decision Making, Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands;2. Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA;1. Wayne State University School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Detroit, MI, United States;2. Wayne State University School of Medicine, Department of Oncology, Detroit, MI, United States;3. Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Population Studies and Disparities Research Program, Detroit, MI, United States;1. Berry College Department of Communication, P.O. Box 299 Berry College, Mt. Berry, Georgia 30149, USA;2. Floyd Family Medicine Residency, 304 Shorter Ave NW #201, Rome, GA, 30165, USA;1. Athena Institute, Faculty of Beta Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands;2. Institute of Communication & Health, Faculty of Communication Sciences, Università della Svizzera italiana, Via Giuseppe Buffi 6, 6900 Lugano, Switzerland |
| |
| Abstract: | ObjectiveTo investigate how, and to what extent, patient-reported quality of care is measured in Anthroposophic and Integrative Medicine (AM/IM).MethodsScoping review of evaluation studies of patient-reported quality of care and development studies of PREMs and/or PROMs in AM/IM, using five stages of Arksey’s methodological framework. Search strategy: Literature search in twelve relevant databases. Data extraction: Basic information, added categories: Focus; PREMs/PROMs; Evaluation measures; Patient involvement; Use of results.ResultsSixty-four included studies: 30 quantitative, 20 qualitative and 14 mixed-methods studies. Quantitative studies showed a wide variety of instruments and qualitative studies showed a meaningful list of evaluation themes. Most prevalent themes: Agency & Empowerment; Patient-provider relationship; Perceived effectiveness; Coping & Psychological functioning; Inner awareness; Meaning; and General wellbeing. Seven studies report concrete, coherent, patient-derived evaluation measures with emphasis on PROMs and/or PREMs.ConclusionPatient-reported quality of care was not measured in a standardised way. Knowledge gap: in general, quantitative studies lack patient-derived measures and qualitative studies lack development of concrete evaluation measures. Many AM/IM evaluation aspects connect with patient-centred care.Practice implicationThe international field of AM/IM would benefit from the development of a core set of validated PROMs and PREMs to further enhance its scientific underpinning. |
| |
| Keywords: | Scoping review Patient-reported quality of care Integrative Medicine Anthroposophic Medicine Health services research Patient reported outcome measures Patient reported experience measures Instrument development Patient-centred-care Patient participation |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
