What instruments are available to aid or evaluate personalised care delivery, from the perspectives of healthcare practitioners and service users? A narrative scoping review
What instruments are available to aid or evaluate personalised care delivery, from the perspectives of healthcare practitioners and service users? A narrative scoping review
Background: although the widespread implementation of personalised care is commonly cited as one of the solutions to managing the burden of increasing multimorbidity, there is no established method for assessing and evaluating personalised care delivery. This review sought to describe the range of existing tools, instruments or methods for assessing, evaluating or measuring personalised care delivery, from the perspectives of healthcare practitioners and/or service users.
Methods : a scoping review of literature published since 1990.
Results: from 3851 potential citations, 172 were included. Of these, 103 reported the development of a new instrument, and 69 reported the adaption of an existing instrument. Most instruments (81%) were designed for use in a specific clinical population. A focus on supported self-management was particularly common (80%). Few instruments were identified that explored the views of healthcare staff (n=8) or carers (n=1). Content analysis generated six domains: understanding the person; understanding capability; understanding behaviour; personalised care interventions; experience of care; and wider determinants. These domains have been used to propose a concept framework.
Conclusion: this review identified a high number of instruments, designed to support personalised care delivery or evaluation. Many were designed to understand a single construct of care (e.g. supported self-management), at an individual level (e.g. patients) and in a specific population (e.g. diabetes). For clinicians wishing to utilise a standardised instrument for a specific purpose, there are many to choose from. Yet no tools encompass the full spectrum of constructs encapsulated within personalised care. Future work should focus on how instruments are used to improve personalised care delivery, particularly through a less siloed, multimorbidity lens.
Johnson, Louise
e3990718-f3f9-417e-a122-f4bdc09ea9fc
Clark, Beth
bc71de33-092b-467e-806a-df2ff4e1175c
Portillo, Mari Carmen
f913b5c5-b949-48f2-b1d0-eb7505484d5c
Kirk, Hayden
b7da6bcf-879d-4cdb-80ac-6d7bbd4864f5
Wood, Matthew
06038167-61be-40d9-ac1c-13faf51be5b8
Jackson, Shae
d2aeb662-349e-4592-8dd9-e2403e90703d
Portillo, Mari Carmen
db4a2173-c62e-41ee-a0a4-79764ff59406
10 July 2025
Johnson, Louise
e3990718-f3f9-417e-a122-f4bdc09ea9fc
Clark, Beth
bc71de33-092b-467e-806a-df2ff4e1175c
Portillo, Mari Carmen
f913b5c5-b949-48f2-b1d0-eb7505484d5c
Kirk, Hayden
b7da6bcf-879d-4cdb-80ac-6d7bbd4864f5
Wood, Matthew
06038167-61be-40d9-ac1c-13faf51be5b8
Jackson, Shae
d2aeb662-349e-4592-8dd9-e2403e90703d
Portillo, Mari Carmen
db4a2173-c62e-41ee-a0a4-79764ff59406
Johnson, Louise, Clark, Beth, Portillo, Mari Carmen, Kirk, Hayden, Wood, Matthew, Jackson, Shae and Portillo, Mari Carmen
(2025)
What instruments are available to aid or evaluate personalised care delivery, from the perspectives of healthcare practitioners and service users? A narrative scoping review.
PLoS ONE, 20 (7 July), [e0325833].
(doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0325833).
Abstract
Background: although the widespread implementation of personalised care is commonly cited as one of the solutions to managing the burden of increasing multimorbidity, there is no established method for assessing and evaluating personalised care delivery. This review sought to describe the range of existing tools, instruments or methods for assessing, evaluating or measuring personalised care delivery, from the perspectives of healthcare practitioners and/or service users.
Methods : a scoping review of literature published since 1990.
Results: from 3851 potential citations, 172 were included. Of these, 103 reported the development of a new instrument, and 69 reported the adaption of an existing instrument. Most instruments (81%) were designed for use in a specific clinical population. A focus on supported self-management was particularly common (80%). Few instruments were identified that explored the views of healthcare staff (n=8) or carers (n=1). Content analysis generated six domains: understanding the person; understanding capability; understanding behaviour; personalised care interventions; experience of care; and wider determinants. These domains have been used to propose a concept framework.
Conclusion: this review identified a high number of instruments, designed to support personalised care delivery or evaluation. Many were designed to understand a single construct of care (e.g. supported self-management), at an individual level (e.g. patients) and in a specific population (e.g. diabetes). For clinicians wishing to utilise a standardised instrument for a specific purpose, there are many to choose from. Yet no tools encompass the full spectrum of constructs encapsulated within personalised care. Future work should focus on how instruments are used to improve personalised care delivery, particularly through a less siloed, multimorbidity lens.
Text
PONE-D-24-60456R1_FTC
- Accepted Manuscript
Text
journal.pone.0325833
- Version of Record
Image
Figure 1 - Consort Flow Chart
Restricted to Repository staff only
Request a copy
Image
Figure 2 - Publications per year
Restricted to Repository staff only
Request a copy
Image
Figure 3 - Personalised Care Evaluation Schematic (1)
Restricted to Repository staff only
Request a copy
Show all 5 downloads.
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 20 May 2025
Published date: 10 July 2025
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 503276
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/503276
ISSN: 1932-6203
PURE UUID: 6bd56ab4-5166-4bc4-829d-4bdf5307e791
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 28 Jul 2025 16:33
Last modified: 17 Sep 2025 02:08
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Beth Clark
Author:
Hayden Kirk
Author:
Matthew Wood
Author:
Shae Jackson
Author:
Mari Carmen Portillo
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics