Isolde M Busch1, Francesca Moretti2, Giulia Travaini2, Albert W Wu3, Michela Rimondini4. 1. Section of Clinical Psychology, Department of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Policlinico G.B. Rossi, Piazzale L.A. Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy. 2. Section of Hygiene and Preventive Medicine, Department of Diagnostic and Public Health, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. 3. Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. Section of Clinical Psychology, Department of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Policlinico G.B. Rossi, Piazzale L.A. Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy. michela.rimondini@univr.it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the automatization of care and rationing of time and staff due to economic imperatives, often resulting in dehumanized care, the concept of 'humanization of care' has been increasingly discussed in the scientific literature. However, it is still an indistinct concept, lacking well-defined dimensions and to date no literature review has tried to capture it. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this systematic review were to identify the key elements of humanization of care by investigating stakeholders' (patients, patients' caregivers, healthcare providers) perspectives and to assess barriers and strategies for its implementation. METHODS: We carried out a systematic search of five electronic databases up to December 2017 as well as examining additional sources (e.g., gray literature). Search terms included "humanization/humanisation of care" and "dehumanization/dehumanisation of care". We conducted a thematic synthesis of the extracted study findings to identify descriptive themes and produce key elements. RESULTS: Of 1327 records retrieved, 14 full-text articles were included in the review. Three main areas (relational, organizational, structural) and 30 key elements (e.g., relationship bonding, holistic approach, adequate working conditions) emerged. Several barriers to implementation of humanization of care exist in all areas. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review and synthesis contributes to a deeper understanding of the concept of humanization of care. The proposed key elements are expected to serve as preliminary guidance for healthcare institutions aiming to overcome challenges in various forms and achieve humanized and efficient care. Future studies need to fully examine specific practices of humanized care and test quantitatively their effectiveness by examining psychosocial and health outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Given the automatization of care and rationing of time and staff due to economic imperatives, often resulting in dehumanized care, the concept of 'humanization of care' has been increasingly discussed in the scientific literature. However, it is still an indistinct concept, lacking well-defined dimensions and to date no literature review has tried to capture it. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this systematic review were to identify the key elements of humanization of care by investigating stakeholders' (patients, patients' caregivers, healthcare providers) perspectives and to assess barriers and strategies for its implementation. METHODS: We carried out a systematic search of five electronic databases up to December 2017 as well as examining additional sources (e.g., gray literature). Search terms included "humanization/humanisation of care" and "dehumanization/dehumanisation of care". We conducted a thematic synthesis of the extracted study findings to identify descriptive themes and produce key elements. RESULTS: Of 1327 records retrieved, 14 full-text articles were included in the review. Three main areas (relational, organizational, structural) and 30 key elements (e.g., relationship bonding, holistic approach, adequate working conditions) emerged. Several barriers to implementation of humanization of care exist in all areas. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review and synthesis contributes to a deeper understanding of the concept of humanization of care. The proposed key elements are expected to serve as preliminary guidance for healthcare institutions aiming to overcome challenges in various forms and achieve humanized and efficient care. Future studies need to fully examine specific practices of humanized care and test quantitatively their effectiveness by examining psychosocial and health outcomes.
Authors: Tejal K Gandhi; Gary S Kaplan; Lucian Leape; Donald M Berwick; Susan Edgman-Levitan; Amy Edmondson; Gregg S Meyer; David Michaels; Julianne M Morath; Charles Vincent; Robert Wachter Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2018-07-17 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: María Del Carmen Pérez-Fuentes; Ivan Herrera-Peco; María Del Mar Molero Jurado; Nieves Fátima Oropesa Ruiz; Diego Ayuso-Murillo; José Jesús Gázquez Linares Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2020-05-13
Authors: María Del Carmen Pérez-Fuentes; Iván Herera-Peco; María Del Mar Molero Jurado; Nieves Fátima Oropesa Ruiz; Diego Ayuso-Murillo; José Jesús Gázquez Linares Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-10-19 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Livia Savarese; Maria Francesca Freda; Raffaele De Luca Picione; Pasqaule Dolce; Raffaella De Falco; Maria Alessio; Mauro Cancian; Adriana Franzese; Maria Domenica Guarino; Roberto Perricone; Angelica Petraroli; Riccardo Senter; Claudia Traverso; Andrea Zanichelli; Eugenio Zito; Maria Bova Journal: Health Psychol Open Date: 2020-12-08
Authors: Nita G Valikodath; Emily Cole; Daniel S W Ting; J Peter Campbell; Louis R Pasquale; Michael F Chiang; R V Paul Chan Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Diana Jiménez-Rodríguez; Mercedes Pérez-Heredia; María Del Mar Molero Jurado; María Del Carmen Pérez-Fuentes; Oscar Arrogante Journal: Healthcare (Basel) Date: 2021-12-26