Vibeke Zoffmann1, Åsa Hörnsten2, Solveig Storbækken3, Marit Graue4, Bodil Rasmussen5, Astrid Wahl6, Marit Kirkevold7. 1. The Research Unit Women's and Children's Health, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark; Institute of Clinical Medicine, Copenhagen University, Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: vibeke.zoffmann@regionh.dk. 2. Department of Nursing, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. 3. Competence Center for Substance Abuse, the Bergen Clinics Foundation, Bergen, Norway. 4. Centre for Evidence-Based Practice, Bergen University College, Bergen, Norway; Department of Paediatrics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. 5. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia. 6. Department of Health Sciences, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Norway. 7. Centre for Evidence-Based Practice, Bergen University College, Bergen, Norway; Department of Nursing Science, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Mette L Olesen; Merete K Hansen; Helena Hansson; Bent Ottesen; Klaus K Andersen; Vibeke Zoffmann Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-10-23 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Sara J T Guilcher; Sarah Hamilton-Wright; Wayne Skinner; Julia Woodhall-Melnik; Peter Ferentzy; Aklilu Wendaferew; Stephen W Hwang; Flora I Matheson Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 2.655