ArticleBMC health services research2026
Developing a tool to facilitate person-centered care in a university hospital in collaboration with patients and healthcare professionals.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPerson-centered care (PCC) aims to treat patients as full persons and provide care that fits patients’ contexts, needs, and wishes. This healthcare approach views patients as active partners, emphasizing patient engagement. PCC is increasingly recognized as a factor in improving healthcare and patient health outcomes, yet, structurally putting PCC into practice in the clinical encounter remains challenging. Cocreation improves usability, feasibility and uptake of tools for intended users. We developed a tool in cocreation with patients and healthcare professionals to support PCC in clinical encounters.
methodsThe development consisted of three phases. Firstly, existing evidence was elicited via two scoping reviews. Secondly, we cocreated a prototype PCC tool with patients and healthcare professionals based on meetings and interviews. Thirdly, we conducted tryouts with the prototype of the PCC tool in the rehabilitation, neuro-oncology, and pediatric departments of a university hospital to test its potential for facilitating PCC and suitability for larger-scale implementation and for a wide variety of patients. The tryouts were evaluated via interviews with patients and healthcare professionals, which we analyzed using thematic analysis. A content analysis of the information filled out in the prototype of the PCC tool was conducted.
resultsCocreation with stakeholders resulted in the development of the PCC tool comprising a digital five-item questionnaire, called ‘We would like to know you’, to support PCC in a hospital setting. Patients fill out the questionnaire voluntarily in the patient portal before the consultation. Health care professionals (HCP) read the answers in the Electronic Health Record (EHR) and touch upon the questionnaire during the clinical encounter to initiate a partnership. For patients, the questionnaire turned out to be useful to share their preferences, needs and expectations. For HCP the information shared in this questionnaire appeared to provide a good starting point to provide PCC.
conclusionThe collaboration with patients and HCP throughout the entire process resulted in a tool that suits users and fits into daily practice in a hospital setting. The three step approach of Hawkins et al. provides a practical way to develop and test a tool to support PCC in clinical encounters.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.