Do Cash-For-Care Schemes Increase Care Users' Experience of Empowerment? A Systematic Review.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1007/s40271-023-00624-z
Eva Pattyn, Paul Gemmel, Sophie Vandepitte, Jeroen Trybou
{"title":"Do Cash-For-Care Schemes Increase Care Users' Experience of Empowerment? A Systematic Review.","authors":"Eva Pattyn,&nbsp;Paul Gemmel,&nbsp;Sophie Vandepitte,&nbsp;Jeroen Trybou","doi":"10.1007/s40271-023-00624-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In cash-for-care schemes, care users are granted a budget or given a voucher to purchase care services, under the assumption that this will enable them to become engaged and empowered customers, leading to more person-centered care. However, opponents of such schemes argue that the responsibility of organizing care is thereby shifted from governments to care users, thus reducing care users' experience of empowerment. The tension between these opposing discourses supposes that other factors affect care users' experience of empowerment.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review explores the experiences of empowerment and person-centered care of budget holders in cash-for-care schemes and the antecedents that can affect this experience.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We screened seven databases up to October 10, 2022. To be included, articles needed to be peer-reviewed, written in English or French, and contain empirical evidence of the experience of empowerment of budget holders in the form of qualitative or quantitative data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The initial search identified 10,966 records of which 90 articles were retained for inclusion. The results show that several contextual and personal characteristics determine whether cash-for-care schemes increase empowerment. The identified contextual factors are establishing a culture of change, supportive financial climate, flexible regulatory framework, and access to support and information. The identified personal characteristics refer to the financial, social, and personal resources of the care user.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review confirms that multiple factors can affect care users' experience of empowerment. However, active cooperation and communication between care user and care provider are essential if policy makers wish to increase care users' experience of empowerment.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00624-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In cash-for-care schemes, care users are granted a budget or given a voucher to purchase care services, under the assumption that this will enable them to become engaged and empowered customers, leading to more person-centered care. However, opponents of such schemes argue that the responsibility of organizing care is thereby shifted from governments to care users, thus reducing care users' experience of empowerment. The tension between these opposing discourses supposes that other factors affect care users' experience of empowerment.

Objective: This systematic review explores the experiences of empowerment and person-centered care of budget holders in cash-for-care schemes and the antecedents that can affect this experience.

Method: We screened seven databases up to October 10, 2022. To be included, articles needed to be peer-reviewed, written in English or French, and contain empirical evidence of the experience of empowerment of budget holders in the form of qualitative or quantitative data.

Results: The initial search identified 10,966 records of which 90 articles were retained for inclusion. The results show that several contextual and personal characteristics determine whether cash-for-care schemes increase empowerment. The identified contextual factors are establishing a culture of change, supportive financial climate, flexible regulatory framework, and access to support and information. The identified personal characteristics refer to the financial, social, and personal resources of the care user.

Conclusion: This review confirms that multiple factors can affect care users' experience of empowerment. However, active cooperation and communication between care user and care provider are essential if policy makers wish to increase care users' experience of empowerment.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医疗换现金计划是否增加了护理使用者的赋权体验?系统评价。
背景:在以现金换护理计划中,护理使用者获得预算或获得代金券以购买护理服务,假设这将使他们成为参与和授权的客户,从而导致更加以人为本的护理。然而,这些计划的反对者认为,组织护理的责任因此从政府转移到护理使用者,从而减少了护理使用者的授权体验。这些对立话语之间的紧张关系假设其他因素影响护理使用者的授权体验。目的:本系统综述探讨了现金换医疗方案中预算持有人的授权和以人为本的护理经验,以及可能影响这种经验的前因。方法:筛选截至2022年10月10日的7个数据库。要列入报告,文章必须经过同行评议,用英文或法文撰写,并以定性或定量数据的形式包含赋予预算持有人权力的经验证据。结果:初步检索确定10,966条记录,其中90篇文章被保留纳入。结果表明,一些环境和个人特征决定了现金换医疗方案是否会增加赋权。确定的背景因素是建立变革文化、支持性金融环境、灵活的监管框架以及获得支持和信息的途径。确定的个人特征是指护理使用者的财务、社会和个人资源。结论:本研究证实多种因素可影响护理使用者的授权体验。然而,如果政策制定者希望增加护理使用者的授权体验,护理使用者和护理提供者之间的积极合作和沟通是必不可少的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research
Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
44
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Patient provides a venue for scientifically rigorous, timely, and relevant research to promote the development, evaluation and implementation of therapies, technologies, and innovations that will enhance the patient experience. It is an international forum for research that advances and/or applies qualitative or quantitative methods to promote the generation, synthesis, or interpretation of evidence. The journal has specific interest in receiving original research, reviews and commentaries related to qualitative and mixed methods research, stated-preference methods, patient reported outcomes, and shared decision making. Advances in regulatory science, patient-focused drug development, patient-centered benefit-risk and health technology assessment will also be considered. Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in The Patient may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances. All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts.
期刊最新文献
Reporting of Patient and Public Involvement in Technology Appraisal and Assessment Reports: A Rapid Scoping Review. 15th Meeting of the International Academy of Health Preference Research. Patients' Preferences for Sphingosine-1-Phosphate Receptor Modulators in Multiple Sclerosis Based on Clinical Management Considerations: A Choice Experiment. The Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes to Measure Treatment Satisfaction in Drug Development. Young People's Barriers and Facilitators of Engagement with Web-Based Mental Health Interventions for Anxiety and Depression: A Qualitative Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1