Patient-reported quality of care in anthroposophic and integrative medicine: A scoping review. Issue 2 (February 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Koster, Evi B.; Baars, Erik W.; Delnoij, Diana M.J.
• Is Part Of: Patient education and counseling. Volume 103:Issue 2(2020)
• Page Start: 276
• Page End: 285
• Publication Date: 2020-02
• Subjects: 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; Patient education -- Periodicals; Health counseling -- Periodicals; Health education -- Periodicals; Counseling -- Periodicals; Patient Education -- Periodicals; Éducation des patients -- Périodiques; Counseling -- Périodiques; Éducation sanitaire -- Périodiques; 615.5071
• DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.09.010
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0738-3991

Abstract

Highlights: Patient-reported quality of care in AM/IM is not measured in a standardised way. Patient-involvement in developing relevant AM/IM measures is generally quite low. Aspects of AM/IM often connect with aspects of patient-centred care. Development of specific PROMs and PREMs will enhance scientific underpinning of AM/IM. Abstract: Objective: To investigate how, and to what extent, patient-reported quality of care is measured in Anthroposophic and Integrative Medicine (AM/IM). Methods: Scoping 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. Results: Sixty-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. Conclusion: Patient-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 implication: The 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.