King's College London

Research portal

A systematic review of impact of person-centred interventions for serious physical illness in terms of outcomes and costs

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Kennedy Bashan Nkhoma, Amelia Cook, Alessandra Giusti, Lindsay Farrant, Ruwayda Petrus, I Petersen, Liz Gwyther, Sridhar Venkatapuram, Richard Harding

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere054386
Pages (from-to)e054386
JournalBMJ Open
Volume12
Issue number7
DOIs
Accepted/In press20 Jun 2022
Published13 Jul 2022

Bibliographical note

Funding Information: This work is funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Unit on Health System Strengthening in sub-Saharan Africa, King's College London (GHRU 16/136/54) using UK aid from the UK Government to support global health research. Publisher Copyright: ©

Documents

  • e054386.full

    e054386.full.pdf, 2.28 MB, application/pdf

    Uploaded date:18 Jul 2022

    Version:Final published version

    Licence:CC BY

King's Authors

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Person-centred care (PCC) is being internationally recognised as a critical attribute of high-quality healthcare. The International Alliance of Patients Organisations defines PCC as care that is focused and organised around people, rather than disease. Focusing on delivery, we aimed to review and evaluate the evidence from interventions that aimed to deliver PCC for people with serious physical illness and identify models of PCC interventions.

METHODS: Systematic review of literature using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, using the following key concepts: patient/person-centred care, family centred care, family based care, individualised care, holistic care, serious illness, chronic illness, long-term conditions from inception to April 2022. Due to heterogeneity of interventions and populations studied, narrative synthesis was conducted. Study quality was appraised using the Joanna Briggs checklist.

RESULTS: We screened n=6156 papers. Seventy-two papers (reporting n=55 different studies) were retained in the review. Most of these studies (n=47) were randomised controlled trials. Our search yielded two main types of interventions: (1) studies with self-management components and (2) technology-based interventions. We synthesised findings across these two models:Self-management component: the interventions consisted of training of patients and/or caregivers or staff. Some studies reported that interventions had effect in reduction hospital admissions, improving quality of life and reducing costs of care.Technology-based interventions: consisted of mobile phone, mobile app, tablet/computer and video. Although some interventions showed improvements for self-efficacy, hospitalisations and length of stay, quality of life did not improve across most studies.

DISCUSSION: PCC interventions using self-management have some effects in reducing costs of care and improving quality of life. Technology-based interventions improves self-efficacy but has no effect on quality of life. However, very few studies used self-management and technology approaches. Further work is needed to identify how self-management and technology approaches can be used to manage serious illness.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018108302.

View graph of relations

© 2020 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454