• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Patient Preference and Adherence >A critical analysis of national policies, systems, and structures of patient empowerment in England and Greece
【24h】

A critical analysis of national policies, systems, and structures of patient empowerment in England and Greece

机译：对英格兰和希腊的国家政策，系统和患者赋权结构的批判性分析

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Background: Comparison of patient empowerment (PE) policies in European countries can provide evidence for improvement and reform across different health systems. It may also influence patient and public involvement, patient experience, preference, and adherence. Objective: The objective of this study was to compare PE within national policies, systems, and structures in England and Greece for achieving integrated people-centered health services. Methods: We performed a critical search and review of policy and legislation papers in English and Greek languages. This included 1) general health policy and systems papers, 2) PE, patient and/or public involvement or patients’ rights policy and legislation (1990–2015), and 3) comparative or discussion papers for England and/or Greece. Results: A total of 102 papers on PE policies, systems, and structures were identified initially; 80?papers were included, in which 46 were policy, legislative, and discussion papers about England, 21 were policy, legislation, and discussion papers about Greece, and 13 were comparative or discussion papers including both the countries. In England, National Health Service policies emphasized patient-centered services, involvement, and empowerment, with recent focus on patients’ rights; while in Greece, they emphasized patients’ rights and quality of services, with recent mentions on empowerment. The health ombudsman is a very important organization across countries; however, it may be more powerful in Greece, because of the nonexistence of local mediating bodies. Micro-structures at trusts/hospitals are comparable, but legislation gives more power to the local structures in Greece. Conclusion: PE policies and systems have been developed and expressed differently in these countries. However, PE similarities, comparable dimensions and mechanisms, were identified. For both the countries, comparative research and these findings could be beneficial in building connections and relationships, contributing to wider European and international developments on PE, involvement, and patients’ rights and further impact on patient preferences and adherence.
机译：背景：欧洲国家对患者赋权（PE）政策的比较可为跨不同卫生系统的改善和改革提供证据。它还可能影响患者和公众的参与，患者的经验，偏好和依从性。目的：本研究的目的是在英格兰和希腊的国家政策，体系和结构中比较体育，以实现以人为本的综合医疗服务。方法：我们对英语和希腊语的政策和法律文件进行了严格的搜索和审查。其中包括1）总体卫生政策和系统论文，2）体育，患者和/或公众参与或患者权利政策和立法（1990-2015年），以及3）英格兰和/或希腊的比较或讨论论文。结果：最初确定了有关体育政策，系统和结构的102篇论文;其中包括80篇论文，其中46篇是关于英格兰的政策，立法和讨论文件，21篇是关于希腊的政策，立法和讨论文件，13篇是包括两国的比较或讨论文件。在英格兰，国家卫生局（National Health Service）政策强调以患者为中心的服务，参与和授权，最近的重点是患者的权利。在希腊期间，他们强调患者的权利和服务质量，最近提到了赋权问题。卫生监察员是各国非常重要的组织;但是，由于没有地方调解机构，它在希腊可能会更强大。信托机构/医院的微观结构具有可比性，但立法赋予希腊地方机构更大的权力。结论：在这些国家，体育政策和制度已得到制定和表达。但是，确定了私募股权的相似性，可比的规模和机制。对于这两个国家而言，比较研究和这些发现可能有助于建立联系和关系，为欧洲和国际在体育，参与和患者权利方面的广泛发展做出贡献，并进一步影响患者的喜好和依从性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号