UNASSIGNED: The provision of audio recordings of their own medical encounters to patients, termed consultation recordings, has demonstrated promising benefits, particularly in addressing information needs of cancer patients. While this intervention has been explored globally, there is limited research specific to Germany. This study investigates the attitudes and experiences of cancer patients in Germany toward consultation recordings.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional quantitative online survey, informed by semi-structured interviews with cancer patients. The survey assessed participants\' attitudes, experiences and desire for consultation recordings in the future. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and subgroup analyses.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 287 adult cancer patients participated. An overwhelming majority (92%) expressed a (very) positive attitude. Overall, participants strongly endorsed the anticipated benefits of the intervention, such as improved recall and enhanced understanding. Some participants expressed concerns that physicians might feel pressured and could become more reserved in their interactions with the use of such recordings. While a small proportion (5%) had prior experience with audio recording medical encounters, the majority (92%) expressed interest in having consultation recordings in the future.
UNASSIGNED: We observed positive attitudes of cancer patients in Germany toward consultation recordings, paralleling international research findings. Despite limited experiences, participants acknowledged the potential benefits of the intervention, particularly related to recalling and comprehending information from medical encounters. Our findings suggest that the potential of the intervention is currently underutilized in German cancer care. While acknowledging the possibility of a positive bias in our results, we conclude that this study represents an initial exploration of the intervention\'s potential within the German cancer care context, laying the groundwork for its further evaluation.

Chronic wound-related pain is a complex biopsychosocial experience that is experienced spontaneously at rest and exacerbated during activities. Tissue debridement, trauma at dressing change, increased bioburden or infection, exposure of periwound skin to moisture, and related treatment can modulate chronic wound-related pain. Clinicians should consider multimodal and multidisciplinary management approach that take into account the biology, emotions, cognitive thinking, social environment, and other personal determinants of pain. Unresolved pain can have a significant impact on wound healing, patients\' adherence to treatment, and individual\'s quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Mental health disorders, particularly depression and anxiety, are widespread globally and necessitate effective solutions. The patient-centred approach has been identified as a viable and effective method for addressing these challenges. This paper synthesised the principles of patient-centred mental health services and provides a comprehensive review of the existing literature.
METHODS: This is a qualitative content analysis study conducted in a systematic review framework in 2022. PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest and Cochrane databases were systematically searched, and by screening the titles, abstracts, and the texts of studies related to the purpose of the research, the data were extracted. Evaluation of the quality of the studies was done using the CASP checklist for qualitative studies. After selecting the final studies based on the entry and exit criteria, subsequently, a thematic analysis of findings was conducted on the data obtained from the systematic review.
RESULTS: The database search produced 6649 references. After screening, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. The quality scores indicated the studies were of high level of quality with acceptable risk of bias. The thematic analysis identified six major principles of patient-centredness in mental health services: education, involvement and cooperation, access, effectiveness and safety, health and well-being, and ethics.
CONCLUSIONS: Patient-centredness is a complex approach in mental health services. The principles and elements of patient-centredness foster positive patient outcomes, enhance healthcare quality and ensure compassionate and effective care. Upholding these principles is crucial for delivering patient-centred, ethical and effective mental health services. Furthermore, the study found that patient education can boost adherence and satisfaction, and decrease unnecessary hospitalisations. Patient involvement in decision-making is influenced by their age and the relationship with their psychologists. And, effective leadership and resource management can enhance clinical processes and patient-centredness in mental health services.

BACKGROUND: Today, person-centred care is seen as a cornerstone of health policy and practice, but accommodating individual patient preferences can be challenging, for example involving caesarean section on maternal request (CSMR). The aim of this study was to explore Swedish health professionals\' perspectives on CSMR and analyse them with regard to potential conflicts that may arise from person-centred care, specifically in relation to shared decision-making.
METHODS: A qualitative study using both inductive and deductive content analysis was conducted based on semi-structured interviews. It was based on a purposeful sampling of 12 health professionals: seven obstetricians, three midwives and two neonatologists working at different hospitals in southern and central Sweden. The interviews were recorded either in a telephone call or in a video conference call, and audio files were deleted after transcription.
RESULTS: In the interviews, twelve types of expressions (sub-categories) of five types of conflicts (categories) between shared decision-making and CSMR emerged. Most health professionals agreed in principle that women have the right to decide over their own body, but did not believe this included the right to choose surgery without medical indications (patient autonomy). The health professionals also expressed that they had to consider not only the woman\'s current preferences and health but also her future health, which could be negatively impacted by a CSMR (treatment quality and patient safety). Furthermore, the health professionals did not consider costs in the individual decision, but thought CSMR might lead to crowding-out effects (avoiding treatments that harm others). Although the health professionals emphasised that every CSMR request was addressed individually, they referred to different strategies for avoiding arbitrariness (equality and non-discrimination). Lastly, they described that CSMR entailed a multifaceted decision being individual yet collective, and the use of birth contracts in order to increase a woman\'s sense of security (an uncomplicated decision-making process).
CONCLUSIONS: The complex landscape for handling CSMR in Sweden, arising from a restrictive approach centred on collective and standardised solutions alongside a simultaneous shift towards person-centred care and individual decision-making, was evident in the health professionals\' reasoning. Although most health professionals emphasised that the mode of delivery is ultimately a professional decision, they still strived towards shared decision-making through information and support. Given the different views on CSMR, it is of utmost importance for healthcare professionals and women to reach a consensus on how to address this issue and to discuss what patient autonomy and shared decision-making mean in this specific context.
Person-centered care is today a widespread approach, but accommodating individual patient preferences can be challenging, for example involving caesarean section on maternal request (CSMR). This study examines Swedish health professionals’ views on CSMR. Interviews with 12 health professionals reveal conflicts between CSMR and key aspects of person-centered care, in particular shared decision-making. While professionals acknowledge women’s autonomy, they question CSMR without medical need. Concerns include for example treatment quality and patient safety, and avoiding treatments that harm others. The Swedish context, balancing collective solutions with individualized care, complicates decision-making. Unlike countries with more private healthcare, where CSMR support might be higher, Swedish health professionals emphasize shared decision-making despite viewing the mode of delivery as primarily a professional decision. This study sheds light on the challenges in integrating CSMR into person-centered care frameworks.

OBJECTIVE: To understand commonalities and differences in injured patient experiences of accessing and receiving quality injury care across three lower-income and middle-income countries.
METHODS: A qualitative interview study. The interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed and thematically analysed.
METHODS: Urban and rural settings in Ghana, South Africa and Rwanda.
METHODS: 59 patients with musculoskeletal injuries.
RESULTS: We found five common barriers and six common facilitators to injured patient experiences of accessing and receiving high-quality injury care. The barriers encompassed issues such as service and treatment availability, transportation challenges, apathetic care, individual financial scarcity and inadequate health insurance coverage, alongside low health literacy and information provision. Facilitators included effective information giving and informed consent practices, access to health insurance, improved health literacy, empathetic and responsive care, comprehensive multidisciplinary management and discharge planning, as well as both informal and formal transportation options including ambulance services. These barriers and facilitators were prevalent and shared across at least two countries but demonstrated intercountry and intracountry (between urbanity and rurality) variation in thematic frequency.
CONCLUSIONS: There are universal factors influencing patient experiences of accessing and receiving care, independent of the context or healthcare system. It is important to recognise and understand these barriers and facilitators to inform policy decisions and develop transferable interventions aimed at enhancing the quality of injury care in sub-Saharan African nations.

OBJECTIVE: As part of a wider study, our aim was to elicit perspectives of people with congenital heart disease (CHD) and/or their parents/carers about their experiences of healthcare and what is important to them when receiving care.
METHODS: A qualitative study involving a series of closed, asynchronous, online discussion forums underpinned by an interpretivist framework and set up and moderated by three patient charities via their Facebook pages.
METHODS: People with CHD and parents/carers of people with CHD from the UK.
RESULTS: Five forums were run for 12-24 weeks across the three charities, and 343 participants signed up to the forums. Four linked themes related to processes of care were identified following thematic analysis of the transcripts: relationships and communication; access and coordination; experience of discrete episodes of care and psychological support. These impacted how care was experienced and, for some patients, outcomes of CHD and its treatment as well as broader health outcomes. In addition, context relating to stages of the patient journey was described, together with patient-related factors such as patients\' knowledge and expertise in their own condition.
CONCLUSIONS: People with CHD and their parents/carers want individualised, person-centred care delivered within an appropriately resourced, multidisciplinary service. Although examples of excellent care were provided it is evident that, from the perspective of patients and parents/carers, some National Health Service Standards for people with CHD were not being met.

BACKGROUND: Health behaviours such as exercise and diet strongly influence well-being and disease risk, providing the opportunity for interventions tailored to diverse individual contexts. Precise behaviour interventions are critical during adolescence and young adulthood (ages 10-25), a formative period shaping lifelong well-being. We will conduct a systematic review of just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) for health behaviour and well-being in adolescents and young adults (AYAs). A JITAI is an emerging digital health design that provides precise health support by monitoring and adjusting to individual, specific and evolving contexts in real time. Despite demonstrated potential, no published reviews have explored how JITAIs can dynamically adapt to intersectional health factors of diverse AYAs. We will identify the JITAIs\' distal and proximal outcomes and their tailoring mechanisms, and report their effectiveness. We will also explore studies\' considerations of health equity. This will form a comprehensive assessment of JITAIs and their role in promoting health behaviours of AYAs. We will integrate evidence to guide the development and implementation of precise, effective and equitable digital health interventions for AYAs.
METHODS: In adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines, we will conduct a systematic search across multiple databases, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE and WHO Global Index Medicus. We will include peer-reviewed studies on JITAIs targeting health of AYAs in multiple languages. Two independent reviewers will conduct screening and data extraction of study and participant characteristics, JITAI designs, health outcome measures and equity considerations. We will provide a narrative synthesis of findings and, if data allows, conduct a meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND: As we will not collect primary data, we do not require ethical approval. We will disseminate the review findings through peer-reviewed journal publication, conferences and stakeholder meetings to inform participatory research.
UNASSIGNED: CRD42023473117.

OBJECTIVE: This research protocol presents an action research project with the aim to demonstrate the value of person-centred fundamental care to nurses and nurse managers in surgical care units to encourage a far-reaching change in this direction. The objectives are to describe this process and to evaluate the effects on missed nursing care and person-centred fundamental care.
METHODS: In a novel collaboration between nursing science and medical humanities the action research design will be used to interact with nursing staff and leaders in three surgical care units and design interventions with the purpose to affect the direction of nursing. Initially, the care units will be presented with interactive workshops including evidence-based education on person-centered fundamental care, person-centredness, nurse role responsibility and leadership. This will be followed by cocreation of interventions to stimulate person-centered fundamental care. The Fundamentals of Care framework will be used as the overarching theoretical framework. Data on missed nursing care, person-centred climate and person-centered fundamental care will be collected repeatedly from patient- and nursing stakeholders through interviews and validated questionnaires. Additionally, data from written reflections following clinical observations and focus group interviews will be included. The duration of the study will be approximately five years from ethical approval.
CONCLUSIONS: It has been previously reported that the current working environments of registered nurses are forcing them to ration their caring responsibilities, leading to a lack of fulfillment of patients\' fundamental care needs, with possible severe consequences for patients. The action research design helps researchers gain an understanding of the contextual factors important for forthcoming interventions, enabling reflective processes and cocreation of interventions with stakeholders. This may lead to feasible interventions and strengthen nursing leadership in the involved units.

Therapeutic connections (TC) between patients and providers are foundational to patient-centered care, which is co-produced between patients and care providers. This necessitates that we understand what patients expect from TCs, the extent to which providers know what patients expect, and what providers expect. The purpose of this study was to examine nine TC dimensions and determine which are most important to patients, which dimensions providers believe are most important to patients, and which are most important to providers. An online survey of patients (n = 388) and care providers (n = 433) was conducted in the USA in March 2021. Respondents rated the extent to which the nine TC dimensions were important to them, followed by open-ended questions to expand upon what matters. The quantitative responses were rank-ordered and rankings were compared across groups. All groups ranked \"having the patient\'s best interest in mind no matter what\" as the top expectation. Patients also ranked \"caring commitment\" and being \"on the same page\" as highly important. Providers were relatively accurate in ranking what they believed was most important to patients. Respondents affirmed the TC dimensions in the qualitative results, adding nuance and context, such as patients feeling \"heard\" and noting providers that go \"above and beyond.\" Providers ranked dimensions differently for themselves, prioritizing \"full presence\" and \"emotional support\" of patients. This study is among the first to examine expectations for TC. TC could play an explanatory role in understanding variation in patient experience ratings and other outcomes.

BACKGROUND: As cancer centers have increased focus on patient-centered, evidenced-based care, implementing efficient programs that facilitate effective patient-clinician communication remains critical. We implemented an electronic health record-integrated patient-reported symptom and needs monitoring program (\'cPRO\' for cancer patient-reported outcomes). To aid evaluation of cPRO implementation, we asked patients receiving care in one of three geographical regions of an academic healthcare system about their experiences.
METHODS: Using a sequential mixed-methods approach, we collected feedback in two waves. Wave 1 included virtual focus groups and interviews with patients who had completed cPRO. In Wave 2, we administered a structured survey to systematically examine Wave 1 themes. All participants had a diagnosed malignancy and received at least 2 invitations to complete cPRO. We used rapid and traditional qualitative methods to analyze Wave 1 data and focused on identifying facilitators and barriers to cPRO implementation. Wave 2 data were analyzed descriptively.
RESULTS: Participants (n = 180) were on average 62.9 years old; were majority female, White, non-Hispanic, and married; and represented various cancer types and phases of treatment. Wave 1 participants (n = 37) identified facilitators, including cPRO\'s perceived value and favorable usability, and barriers, including confusion about cPRO\'s purpose and various considerations for responding. High levels of clinician engagement with, and patient education on, cPRO were described as facilitators while low levels were described as barriers. Wave 2 (n = 143) data demonstrated high endorsement rates of cPRO\'s usability on domains such as navigability (91.6%), comprehensibility (98.7%), and relevance (82.4%). Wave 2 data also indicated low rates of understanding cPRO\'s purpose (56.7%), education from care teams about cPRO (22.5%), and discussing results of cPRO with care teams (16.3%).
CONCLUSIONS: While patients reported high value and ease of use when completing cPRO, they also reported areas of confusion, emphasizing the importance of patient education on the purpose and use of cPRO and clinician engagement to sustain participation. These results guided successful implementation changes and will inform future improvements.