The phrase ‘person‐centred care’ (PCC) reminds us that the fundamental philosophical goal of caring for people is to uphold or promote their personhood. However, such an idea has translated into promoting individualist notions of autonomy, empowerment and personal responsibility in the context of consumerism and neoliberalism, which is problematic both conceptually and practically. From a conceptual standpoint, it ignores the fact that humans are social, historical and biographical beings, and instead assumes an essentialist or idealized concept of personhood in which (...) a person is viewed as an individual static object. From a practical standpoint, the application of such a concept of personhood can lead to neglect of a person's fundamental care needs and exacerbate the problems of social inequity, in particular for older people and people with dementia. Therefore, we argue that our understanding of PCC must instead be based on a dynamic concept of personhood that integrates the relevant social, relational, temporal and biographical dimensions. We propose that the correct concept of personhood in PCC is one in which persons are understood as socially embedded, relational and temporally extended subjects rather than merely individual, autonomous, asocial and atemporal objects. We then present a reconceptualization of the fundamental philosophical goal of PCC as promoting selfhood rather than personhood. Such a reconceptualization avoids the problems that beset the concept of personhood and its application in PCC, while also providing a philosophical foundation for the growing body of empirical literature that emphasizes the psychosocial, relational, subjective and biographical dimensions of PCC. (shrink)

Recognising relationships: reflections on evidence‐based practice This paper argues for a broadening of the way evidence is developed and used in health‐care. It contends that the current political and policy imperatives and the evidence‐based practice movement are in direct tension with the other major ideological movements that promote patient‐centred healthcare services. Nursing is affected by this tension because it is more naturally focused on relationships with clients to achieve health outcomes. The unresolved and mounting tension could be alleviated by embracing (...) a broader definition of what counts as evidence and by focusing more on patient‐centred healthcare methodologies and acknowledging the interdependency of distinct ways of generating new knowledge. A number of case studies are used to illustrate how research focusing on patient perspectives and nurses’ response to patient experiences can improve the evidence base for nursing. (shrink)

The discipline of knowledge translation (KT) emerged as a way of systematically understanding and addressing the challenges of applying health and medical research in practice. In light of ongoing and emerging critique of KT from the medical humanities and social sciences disciplines, KT researchers have become increasingly aware of the complexity of the translational process, particularly the significance of culture, tradition and values in how scientific evidence is understood and received, and thus increasingly receptive to pluralistic notions of knowledge. Hence, (...) there is now an emerging view of KT as a highly complex, dynamic, and integrated sociological phenomenon, which neither assumes nor creates knowledge hierarchies and neither prescribes nor privileges scientific evidence. Such a view, however, does not guarantee that scientific evidence will be applied in practice and thus poses a significant dilemma for KT regarding its status as a scientific and practice-oriented discipline, particularly within the current sociopolitical climate. Therefore, in response to the ongoing and emerging critique of KT, we argue that KT must provide scope for relevant scientific evidence to occupy an appropriate position of epistemic primacy in public discourse. Such a view is not intended to uphold the privileged status of science nor affirm the “scientific logos” per se. It is proffered as a counterbalance to powerful social, cultural, political and market forces that are able to challenge scientific evidence and promote disinformation to the detriment of democratic outcomes and the public good. (shrink)

Se sabe relativamente poco acerca de las ideas de los maestros en formación sobre la naturaleza y el propósito de la enseñanza de la historia. Este artículo revisa la investigación sobre este tema y presenta un análisis de cómo el currículum nacional inglés ha conceptualizado los objetivos de la enseñanza de la historia desde el año 1991. Los datos derivados de una discusión en línea permiten explorar el pensamiento de 40 docentes de historia en prácticas y analizarlos cualitativamente para conocer (...) la variedad de ideas presentes en esta muestra. Los estudiantes tuvieron una amplia gama de puntos de vista sobre los objetivos y propósitos de la enseñanza de la historia y se identificaron las divergencias y convergencias entre el pensamiento de los estudiantes y el pensamiento de los políticos ingleses y de los líderes de opinión. Se concluye que quienes desarrollan los currículos deben prestar mucha más atención que en el pasado al pensamiento de los actuales y futuros profesores de historia, que son en último término los responsables del diseño de las propuestas curriculares. (shrink)

The Fundamentals of Care Framework is an evidence‐based, theory‐informed framework that conceptualises high‐quality fundamental care. The Framework places the nurse–patient relationship at the centre of care provision and outlines the nurse behaviours required for relationship development. Numerous instruments exist to measure behavioural aspects of the nurse–patient relationship; however, the literature offers little guidance on which instruments are psychometrically sound and best measure the core relationship elements of the Fundamentals of Care Framework. This study evaluated the quality of nurse–patient relationship instruments (...) by (1) assessing their content development and measurement properties (e.g. dimensionality, targeting, reliability, validity) and (2) mapping instrument content to the Framework's core relationship elements: trust, focus, anticipate, know, and evaluate. Twenty‐seven instruments were evaluated. Findings demonstrated that patients and nurses were rarely involved in item development. Most instruments exhibited poor measurement properties, with only one instrument having complete information on all quality indicators. Instrument content focused primarily on nurses getting to know patients and earning their trust, with only 54, 18, and 1 item(s), respectively, measuring ‘focus’, ‘anticipate’ and ‘evaluate’. Hence, there does not appear to be a robust instrument measuring behavioural aspects of nurse–patient relationships, nor one capturing the relationship elements of the Fundamentals of Care Framework. (shrink)