Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
Rigshospitalet - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

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

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Guided self-determination improves life skills with type 1 diabetes and A1C in randomized controlled trial

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Smoking cessation prolongs survival in female cancer survivors - the Danish nurse cohort

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Joint tobacco smoking and alcohol intake exacerbates cancer risk in women- the Danish nurse cohort

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  • Vibeke Zoffmann
  • Åsa Hörnsten
  • Solveig Storbækken
  • Marit Graue
  • Bodil Rasmussen
  • Astrid Wahl
  • Marit Kirkevold
View graph of relations

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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalPatient Education and Counseling
Volume99
Issue number3
Pages (from-to)400-7
Number of pages8
ISSN0738-3991
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2016

ID: 46441319