umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Translating person-centered care into practice: a comparative analysis of motivational interviewing, illness-integration support, and guided self-determination
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Nursing.
Show others and affiliations
2016 (English)In: Patient Education and Counseling, ISSN 0738-3991, E-ISSN 1873-5134, Vol. 99, no 3, p. 400-407Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Resource type
Text
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2016. Vol. 99, no 3, p. 400-407
Keywords [en]
Empowerment, Person-centred care, Chronic illness, Translational research, Self-management, tivational interviewing, Life skills, Illness integration, Guided self-determination, Comparative analysis
National Category
Nursing
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-119072DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.10.015ISI: 000371989700012PubMedID: 26547303OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-119072DiVA, id: diva2:921431
Available from: 2016-04-20 Created: 2016-04-11 Last updated: 2018-06-07Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Hörnsten, Åsa

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Hörnsten, Åsa
By organisation
Department of Nursing
In the same journal
Patient Education and Counseling
Nursing

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 184 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf