Translating person-centered care into practice: A comparative analysis of motivational interviewing, illness-integration support, and guided self-determination
Translating person-centered care into practice: A comparative analysis of motivational interviewing, illness-integration support, and guided self-determination
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.pec.2015.10.015
复制
发表时间：
2016-03-01
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Kirkevold, Marit
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Zoffmann, Vibeke;Hornsten, Asa;Kirkevold, Marit
目的：以人为本的护理[PCC]可以使慢性病患者生活得更好。然而，将PCC转化为实践是具有挑战性的。本研究旨在比较动机访谈法、疾病整合支持法和引导性自我决定法的翻译潜力。方法：比较分析包括八个方面：（1）哲学渊源;（2）在原始临床环境中的发展;（3）理论基础;（4）总体目标和支持过程;（5）参与人群的一般原则、策略或工具;（6）医疗保健专业人员的背景和培训;（7）忠诚度评估;（8）报告的效果。他们最初的设置解释了为什么IIS和GSD努力整合生活-疾病，而MI专注于管理矛盾心理。IIS和GSD基于扎根理论，MI直观地发展。所有应用程序和战略，以提高专业人员的沟通技能和参与; GSD包括特定背景的反思表。都提供培训方案; MI和GSD包括fidelity tools.Conclusion：每种方法都有一个主要的应用程序：MI，当矛盾心理威胁到积极的变化; IIS，当整合新诊断的慢性疾病;和GSD，当解决问题是困难的，或deadlocked.Practice影响：专业人士必须严格考虑在他们选择的方法的背景。(C)2015爱思唯尔爱尔兰有限公司版权所有。
Objective: Person-centred care [PCC] can engage people in living well with a chronic condition. However, translating PCC into practice is challenging. We aimed to compare the translational potentials of three approaches: motivational interviewing [MI], illness integration support [IIS] and guided self-determination [GSD].Methods: Comparative analysis included eight components: (1) philosophical origin; (2) development in original clinical setting; (3) theoretical underpinnings; (4) overarching goal and supportive processes; (5) general principles, strategies or tools for engaging peoples; (6) health care professionals' background and training; (7) fidelity assessment; (8) reported effects.Results: Although all approaches promoted autonomous motivation, they differed in other ways. Their original settings explain why IIS and GSD strive for life-illness integration, whereas MI focuses on managing ambivalence. IIS and GSD were based on grounded theories, and MI was intuitively developed. All apply processes and strategies to advance professionals' communication skills and engagement; GSD includes context-specific reflection sheets. All offer training programs; MI and GSD include fidelity tools.Conclusion: Each approach has a primary application: MI, when ambivalence threatens positive change; IIS, when integrating newly diagnosed chronic conditions; and GSD, when problem solving is difficult, or deadlocked.Practice Implications: Professionals must critically consider the context in their choice of approach. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.