Search results

The aim of this study is twofold: (1) to gain insight into the different perspectives on the relationship between patient and person centeredness and (2) to learn more about the differences between non-academic and academic stakeholders in the healthcare system.

This mixed-methods study includes a scoping review on person and patient centeredness and in-depth interviews with patients, caregivers, staff and management of healthcare organizations. The data were analyzed by following the six phases of Braun and Clarke.

The analysis of the data showed four different perspectives on patient versus person centeredness: (1) they are synonyms; (2) one term is favorite; (3) they should be in balance; and (4) person centeredness is the surplus on top of patient centeredness.

There are different perspectives on patient versus person centeredness. Perspectives differ between people and can change over time. Some people feel like a patient all the time, other people feel like a person all the time, and some feel like a patient at one point in time and as a person at another point in time.

These different perspectives can have important implications for the so-called moments of truth. In their role as patients, people value functional encounters and in their identity as people they value meaningful encounters with caregivers.

By unraveling these different perspectives, novel insights were found in the different perspectives people can take.

The Scottish Government hope to pilot judge only rape trials to increase the woefully low rape conviction rates in Scotland. The reasoning is that by removing jurors, the court will be attenuating the role that rape myths and other cognitive and social biases have on conviction rates. However, a plethora of research from cognitive and social psychology, legal literature and decision-making science has shown that experts, including judges and other legal professionals, may be no less biased than laypeople. This paper aims to outline the research highlighting that experts may also be biased, why biases in judges can be elicited, and potential alternative recommendations (i.e. deselecting jurors who score highly on rape myths and providing training/education for jurors). Furthermore, piloting with real judges, in real trials, may not be best practice. Therefore, the authors recommend that any piloting is preceded by experimental research.

N/A

Furthermore, piloting with real judges, in real trials, may not be best practice; therefore, the authors recommend that any piloting is preceded by experimental research.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this research is the first of its kind to directly compared the decision-making of jurors and judges within the current Scottish legal context.