Translating person-centered care into practice: a comparative analysis of motivational interviewing, illness-integration support, and guided self-determination

Zoffmann, Vibeke, Hörnsten, Åsa, Storbækken, Solveig, Graue, Marit, Rasmussen, Bodil, Wahl, Astrid and Kirkevold, Marit 2016, Translating person-centered care into practice: a comparative analysis of motivational interviewing, illness-integration support, and guided self-determination, Patient education and counselling, vol. 99, no. 3, pp. 400-407, doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.10.015.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title Translating person-centered care into practice: a comparative analysis of motivational interviewing, illness-integration support, and guided self-determination
Author(s) Zoffmann, Vibeke
Hörnsten, Åsa
Storbækken, Solveig
Graue, Marit
Rasmussen, BodilORCID iD for Rasmussen, Bodil orcid.org/0000-0002-6789-8260
Wahl, Astrid
Kirkevold, Marit
Journal name Patient education and counselling
Volume number 99
Issue number 3
Start page 400
End page 407
Total pages 8
Publisher Elsevier
Place of publication Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Publication date 2016-03
ISSN 1873-5134
Keyword(s) Chronic illness
Comparative analysis
Empowerment
Guided self-determination
Illness integration
Life skills
Motivational interviewing
Person-centred care
Self-management
Translational research
Summary 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.
Language eng
DOI 10.1016/j.pec.2015.10.015
Field of Research 11 Medical And Health Sciences
17 Psychology And Cognitive Sciences
111099 Nursing not elsewhere classified
Socio Economic Objective 920210 Nursing
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
ERA Research output type C Journal article
Copyright notice ©2016, Elsevier
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30080196

Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 22 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 21 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 277 Abstract Views, 2 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Thu, 10 Dec 2015, 14:20:57 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.