Cited by 327Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare

Bridging the divide between families and health professionals’ perspectives on family‐centred care

Open access
MacKean, Gail L., Thurston, Wilfreda E., Scott, Catherine M.·2005·Health Expectations

Abstract

Objectives To describe and discuss key findings from a recent research project that challenge an increasingly prevalent theme, apparent in both family‐centred care research and practice, of conceptualizing family‐centred care as shifting care, care management, and advocacy responsibilities to families. The purpose of the research, from which these findings emerged, was to develop a conceptualization of family‐centred care grounded in the experiences of families and direct health‐care providers. Design Qualitative research methods, following the grounded theory tradition, were used to develop a conceptual framework that described the dimensions of the concept of family‐centred care and their interrelationships, in the substantive area of children's developmental services. This article reports on and extends key findings from this grounded theory study, in light of current trends in the literature. Setting and participants The substantive area that served as the setting for the research was developmental services at a children's hospital in Alberta, Canada. Data was collected through focus groups and individual interviews with 37 parents of children diagnosed with a developmental problem and 16 frontline health‐care providers. Findings Key findings from this research project do not support the current emphasis in family‐centred care research and practice on conceptualizing family‐centred care as the shifting of care, care management, and advocacy responsibilities to families. Rather, what emerged was that parents want to work truly collaboratively with health‐care providers in making treatment decisions and on implementing a dynamic care plan that will work best for child and family. Discussion and conclusions A definition of collaboration is provided, and the nature of collaborative relationships described. Contributing factors to the difficulty in establishing true collaborative relationships between families and health‐care professionals, where the respective roles to be played by health‐care professionals and families are jointly determined, are discussed. In light of these findings we strongly advocate for the re‐examination of current family‐centred care policy and practice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2005.00319.x

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Families of children with chronic or complex conditions report multiple unmet needs on information and physician collaboration, specifically on community services, condition understanding, and networking.

    “Families of children with chronic or complex conditions report multiple unmet needs on information and physician collaboration [9, 10], specifically on community services, condition understanding, and networking [63, 64].”
  • Some providers consider FCC as delegating more responsibility to families for care and decision making than families desire.

    “Some providers consider FCC as delegating more responsibility to families for care and decision making than families desire [9, 10].”
  • Parents consistently rate high levels of satisfaction with a sense of partnership in a variety of child health care settings, even as subjective descriptions of care are far less satisfactory.

    “Parents consistently rate high levels of satisfaction with a sense of partnership in a variety of child health care settings [76–78], even as subjective descriptions of care are far less satisfactory [9, 10].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
MacKean, G. L., Thurston, W. E., & Scott, C. M.
Affiliations
University of Calgary (CA)
Venue
Health Expectations
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-02-15
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
74-85
ISSN
  • 1369-6513 (ISSN-L)
  • 1369-7625
OpenAlex
W2149571138
Cited by
327
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 17
FWCI
24.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Expectations (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Radiological and Ultrasound Technology › Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Adolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Keywords
family-centered care, children's hospitals, care management, patient advocacy, parents of children with developmental disabilities, health care provider role
MeSH terms
Adult, Alberta, Child, Developmental Disabilities, Family, Health Personnel, Hospitals, Pediatric, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Focus Groups, Patient-Centered Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review