Laura Pirhonen1, Elisabeth Hansson Olofsson2, Andreas Fors3, Inger Ekman2, Kristian Bolin4. 1. Institute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden; Centre for Person-Centred Care (GPCC), University of Gothenburg, Sweden; Centre for Health Economics (CHEGU), Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Electronic address: laura.pirhonen@economics.gu.se. 2. Institute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden; Centre for Person-Centred Care (GPCC), University of Gothenburg, Sweden. 3. Institute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden; Centre for Person-Centred Care (GPCC), University of Gothenburg, Sweden; Närhälsan Research and Development Primary Health Care, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden. 4. Centre for Health Economics (CHEGU), Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To study the effects of person-centred care provided to patients with acute coronary syndrome, using four different health-related outcome measures. Also, to examine the performance of these outcomes when measuring person-centred care. DATA AND METHOD: The data used in this study consists of primary data from a multicentre randomized parallel group, controlled intervention study for patients with acute coronary syndrome at Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Gothenburg, Sweden. The intervention and control group consisted of 94 and 105 patients, respectively. The effect of the intervention on health-related outcomes was estimated, controlling for socio-economic and disease-related variables. RESULTS: Patients in the intervention group reported significantly higher general self-efficacy than those in the control group six months after intervention start-up. Moreover, the intervention group returned to work in a greater extent than controls; their physical activity level had increased more and they had a higher EQ-5D score, meaning higher health-related quality of life. These latter effects are not significant but are all pointing towards the beneficial effects of person-centred care. All the effects were estimated while controlling for important socio-economic and disease-related variables. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of person-centred care varies between different outcomes considered. A statistically significant beneficial effect was found for one of the four outcome measures (self-efficacy). The other measures all captured beneficial, but not significant, effects.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To study the effects of person-centred care provided to patients with acute coronary syndrome, using four different health-related outcome measures. Also, to examine the performance of these outcomes when measuring person-centred care. DATA AND METHOD: The data used in this study consists of primary data from a multicentre randomized parallel group, controlled intervention study for patients with acute coronary syndrome at Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Gothenburg, Sweden. The intervention and control group consisted of 94 and 105 patients, respectively. The effect of the intervention on health-related outcomes was estimated, controlling for socio-economic and disease-related variables. RESULTS:Patients in the intervention group reported significantly higher general self-efficacy than those in the control group six months after intervention start-up. Moreover, the intervention group returned to work in a greater extent than controls; their physical activity level had increased more and they had a higher EQ-5D score, meaning higher health-related quality of life. These latter effects are not significant but are all pointing towards the beneficial effects of person-centred care. All the effects were estimated while controlling for important socio-economic and disease-related variables. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of person-centred care varies between different outcomes considered. A statistically significant beneficial effect was found for one of the four outcome measures (self-efficacy). The other measures all captured beneficial, but not significant, effects.
Authors: Laura Pirhonen; Kristian Bolin; Elisabeth Hansson Olofsson; Andreas Fors; Inger Ekman; Karl Swedberg; Hanna Gyllensten Journal: Pharmacoecon Open Date: 2019-12
Authors: Roman A Lewandowski; Jędrzej B Lewandowski; Inger Ekman; Karl Swedberg; Jan Törnell; Heather L Rogers Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Carolyn Steele Gray; Edward Chau; Farah Tahsin; Sarah Harvey; Mayura Loganathan; Brian McKinstry; Stewart W Mercer; Jason Xin Nie; Ted E Palen; Tim Ramsay; Kednapa Thavorn; Ross Upshur; Walter P Wodchis Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 5.428