Ranking Of Statements Research Articles

Stakeholder perspectives on payment reform in maternity care in the Netherlands: A Q-methodology study

Based on theoretical notions, there is consensus that alternative payment models to the common fee-for-service model have the potential to improve healthcare quality through increased collaboration and reduced under- and overuse. This is particularly relevant for maternity care in the Netherlands because perinatal mortality rates are relatively high in comparison to other Western countries. Therefore, an experiment with bundled payments for maternity care was initiated in 2017. However, the uptake of this alternative payment model remains low, as also seen in other countries, and fee-for-service models prevail. A deeper understanding of stakeholders’ perspectives on payment reform in maternity care is necessary to inform policy makers about the obstacles to implementing alternative payment models and potential ways forward. We conducted a Q-methodology study to explore perspectives of stakeholders (postpartum care managers, midwives, gynecologists, managers, health insurers) in maternity care in the Netherlands on payment reform. Participants were asked to rank a set of statements relevant to payment reform in maternity care and explain their ranking during an interview. Factor analysis was used to identify patterns in the rankings of statements. We identified three distinct perspectives on payment reform in maternity care. One general perspective, broadly supported within the sector, focusing mainly on outcomes, and two complementary perspectives, one focusing more on equality and one focusing more on collaboration. This study shows there is consensus among stakeholders in maternity care in the Netherlands that payment reform is required. However, stakeholders have different views on the purpose and desired design of the payment reform and set different conditions. Working towards payment reform in co-creation with all involved parties may improve the general attitude towards payment reform, may enhance the level of trust among stakeholders, and may contribute to a higher uptake in practice.

Views of older Surinamese adults in the Netherlands about neighbourhood age-friendliness and well-being realisation: A Q-methodology study

In the western world, the ageing population is becoming more ethnically diverse. Research has shown the importance of physical and social neighbourhood resources for the well-being realisation of older adults. However, the relative importance of neighbourhood resources for the well-being realisation of older Surinamese adults remains unknown. We conducted a Q-methodology study in April–July 2022 to capture the variety of viewpoints of older adults (age ≥ 65 years) with Surinamese backgrounds in the Netherlands on neighbourhood age-friendliness and well-being realisation. A purposive sample of 33 participants ranked 38 neighbourhood-related opinion statements according to their importance for their well-being and explained their rankings during follow-up interviews. By-person factor analysis of the data was conducted to identify common patterns in the statement rankings. Three distinct viewpoints in which various aspects were considered to be important were extracted: 1) a safe neighbourhood in which to stay socially active, 2) a supportive neighbourhood in which to stay independent and 3) a well-maintained neighbourhood with involved residents. These results suggest that not all older Surinamese adults in the Netherlands find the same neighbourhood resources to be important for the realisation of well-being.

A severely fragmented concept: Uncovering citizens’ subjective accounts of severity of illness

Universal healthcare is constrained by national governments' finite health resources. This gives rise to complex priority-setting dilemmas. In several universal healthcare systems, the notion of severity (Norwegian: ‘alvorlighet’) is a key consideration in priority setting, such that treatments for ‘severe’ illness may be prioritised even when evidence suggests it would not be as cost-effective as treatment options for other conditions. However, severity is a poorly-defined concept, and there is no consensus on what severity means in the context of healthcare provision – whether viewed from public, academic, or professional perspectives. Though several public preference-elicitation studies demonstrate that severity is considered relevant in healthcare resource distribution, there is a paucity of research on public perceptions on the actual meaning of severity. We conducted a Q-methodology study between February 2021 and March 2022 to investigate views on severity amongst general public participants in Norway. Group interviews (n = 59) were conducted to gather statements for the Q-sort ranking exercises (n = 34). Data were analysed using by-person factor analysis to identify patterns in the statement rankings. We present a rich picture of perspectives on the term ‘severity’, and identify four different, partly conflicting, views on severity in the Norwegian population, with few areas of consensus. We argue that policymakers ought to be made aware of these differing perspectives on severity, and that there is need for further research on the prevalence of these views and on how they are distributed within populations.

Stakeholders’ perspectives on the decision-making process regarding reasonable accommodations for students with SEN: a concept mapping study

ABSTRACT Reasonable accommodations (RA) and the accompanying decision-making process for students with SEN can be vague. Often a clear definition of RA to facilitate the decision-making process with various actors is missing. In this study, insight is gained into what four stakeholder groups described as important in the decision-making process regarding RA for students with SEN. Data were gathered and analysed by the use of concept mapping methodology, and concept maps were constructed based on the participants’ clustering and ranking of statements. Afterward, the similarities and differences between the concept maps of all participating groups were identified based on reoccurring statements and themes. Participating actors were teachers, principals, professionals of the Pupil Guidance Centre (PGC), and parents of children with SEN, all living and working in Flanders (the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium). The most important cluster for teachers refers to the student as the central point of attention. For Professionals of the Pupil Guidance Centre (PGC), consensus and communication were perceived as the most essential. Principals referred to students’ and teachers’ needs as most important. Parents referred to respect for the parental perspective as the main point of attention when making decisions regarding RA for students with SEN.

Analysis of Delphi study 7-point linear scale data by parametric methods: Use of the mean and standard deviation

The Delphi technique is a unique survey method that involves an iterative process to gain consensus when consensus is challenging to establish. Survey participants typically rate a variety of statements using a specified rating scale. The survey is repeated for several rounds, and at each round statements that do not reach a predefined level of consensus are advanced to the next round while giving the participants information about the responses of other participants for their comparison. The final statements are then ranked in order of the average rating. The statistical methods to analyze Delphi studies are not well described. This study investigates the use of a 1–7 linear rating scale along with parametric summary statistics for assessment of consensus and ranking of statements. A study set of 9297 individual ratings on the 1–7 scale were obtained from previously performed Delphi studies and used to create 490,000 simulated Delphi ratings with various numbers of participants. While the overall distribution of ratings was strongly left skewed the sampling distribution was near normally distributed for studies with five or more participants. The average difference between the standard deviation and interquartile range was −0.26/7. The overall risk of falsely concluding consensus using the standard deviation as a summary statistic was 7.3% when compared to using the interquartile range. The average difference between mean and median was −0.20/7. The risk of falsely ranking the statements by a value of 0.5 or more was near zero for all sample sizes when the mean was compared to the median. This study suggests that the use of the 1–7 linear rating scale in combination with the parametric summary statistics of standard deviation and mean is a valid method to analyze ratings from Delphi studies.

A Spherical Fuzzy Framework for Sales Personnel Selection

In this paper, we aim to provide an extension of the personality style-based psychological comparative assessment of salesmen using three orientations such as task, people, and organizations (“Sales Troika” or ST). Contrasting to the classical ST model, we use spherical fuzzy set (SFS) for ranking of statements and subsequent score calculations. Personality assessment (PA) is an important aspect during the process of recruitment and selection. PA acts as one of the critical success factors for effective selection as personality significantly influences the performance of the employee. The psychological frameworks follow conventional scoring which suffers from subjective bias. The present paper attempts to offset the subjective bias (due to imprecise and uncertain information) by using SFS-based rating and calculations. The study is carried out in two steps. First, a group of five candidates applying for sales job at the junior level have taken part in the comparative assessment process. We use our framework to classify the respondents according to their style. Second, we carry out a SFS-based multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for their relative ranking based on the opinions of the members of a selection panel. To carry out the comparative assessment of the candidates based on experts’ ratings, we use the modified SF LOgarithmic Percentage Change-driven Objective Weighting (LOPCOW) method. We examine the stability and accuracy of the SFS-MCDA model through validity testing and sensitivity analysis. We observe a resemblance between the decision of the panel and the PA results.

Athletic trainers' viewpoints of patient-centered care: Preliminary findings.

The core competency of patient-centered care (PCC) states that for positive patient outcomes, the provider must respect the patient’s views and recognize their experiences. The Athletic Training Strategic Alliance Research Agenda Task Force identified a profession-wide belief that examining the extent to which athletic trainers (ATs) provide PCC in their clinical practice would benefit the profession. To first address this line of inquiry, we must study the subjectivity of how ATs view PCC. This study used Q methodology which is a research design that collects data from participants from a quantitative and qualitative perspective. A total of 115 (males = 62, females = 53, age = 37±10 y, experience = 13±10 y) ATs dispersed between 11 job settings volunteered for this study. Participants were asked to pre-sort (agree, disagree, neutral) 36 validated statements representing the 8 dimensions of PCC, then completed a Q-sort where they dragged-and-dropped the pre-sorted statements based on perceived importance in providing PCC. The Q-sorts were analyzed using QMethod software. A principal component analysis was used to identify statement rankings and factors. Factors were determined by an Eigenvalue > 1 and analyzed using a scree plot. The 6 highest selected statements per factor were assessed to create the distinguishing viewpoints. Two distinguishing viewpoints emerged from the factor analysis of the Q-sorts: 1) the interpersonal connection that valued teamwork, open communication, and respectful care with varied populations; 2) the holistic gatekeeper that valued personal promotion for activities of daily living, self-care, and quality of life. Overall, ATs value patient’s preferences and respect. However, a lack of importance was identified for incorporating the disablement model which is a core competency and adopted framework by the athletic training profession.

A comprehensive empirical investigation on failure clustering in parallel debugging

The clustering technique has attracted a lot of attention as a promising strategy for parallel debugging in multi-fault scenarios, this heuristic approach (i.e., failure indexing or fault isolation) enables developers to perform multiple debugging tasks simultaneously through dividing failed test cases into several disjoint groups. When using statement ranking representation to model failures for better clustering, several factors influence clustering effectiveness, including the risk evaluation formula (REF), the number of faults (NOF), the fault type (FT), and the number of successful test cases paired with one individual failed test case (NSP1F). In this paper, we present the first comprehensive empirical study of how these four factors influence clustering effectiveness. We conduct extensive controlled experiments on 1060 faulty versions of 228 simulated faults and 141 real faults, and the results reveal that: (1) GP19 is highly competitive across all REFs, (2) clustering effectiveness decreases as NOF increases, (3) higher clustering effectiveness is easier to achieve when a program contains only predicate faults, and (4) clustering effectiveness remains when the scale of NSP1F is reduced to 20%.

Building blocks for a public health ethics framework for the geriatric community.

BackgroundThe elderly population is steadily growing in South Africa. However, there is limited strategic planning or policy initiatives to address this group’s vulnerability resulting in several public health ethical issues that need to be considered and addressed. This article aims to develop a public health ethics framework for the geriatric community with the purpose to review ethical implications when working with the geriatric community.MethodsThe Q-methodology was selected for data collection. Fifteen statements were ranked by means of a five-point Likert-scale questionnaire. Twenty-two participants from six geriatric institutions participated in the ranking of the statements.ResultsThe ranking of the statements confirmed the need for a public health ethics framework to provide guidance when working with the geriatric community and to evaluate decisions about geriatric care. Such a framework should be application-based and practice-oriented which can assist in addressing unfamiliarity with public health ethics in general and can extend the capacity for decision-making. The ranking of these statements contributed to the scope of the planned framework, by considering the vulnerability of healthcare practitioners (as community of practitioners) and the geriatric community as a basis from which to promote justice in public health programmes.ConclusionBased on the ranking of statements, eight building blocks for a public health ethics framework were identified. The building blocks are imbedded in professional ethics and care ethics. The proposed framework can give rise to social justice in public health and the ability to evaluate what the ethical implications are for public health policies, programmes and interventions aimed at the geriatric community.

Expert Perceptions of Conflicts in African Vulture Conservation: Implications for Overcoming Ethical Decision-Making Dilemmas

Because African vultures are declining due to anthropogenic causes, we linked conservation management with social science by examining the ethical perspectives of individuals responsible for the management of vultures. Understanding these perspectives can help balance scientific knowledge with stakeholder concerns, resulting in more effective decision-making. We interviewed 37 vulture conservationists: 24 in South Africa and Kenya from July–August 2017, and the remaining 13 at a conference in the United States from October–November 2017. We used a Q-Methodology activity in which participants ranked a set of statements (termed Q-sort questions) that we had generated based on pre-study interviews and published literature. This methodology is a social science tool that quantitatively evaluates subjective characteristics such as the values that shape a participant's ethical worldview. A follow-up, semi-structured interview provided a deeper understanding of the participants' statement rankings. Together, both steps addressed individual beliefs and how the participants framed their ethical value structures. We found that the conservationists interviewed, regardless of background, held an overall ethical commitment to duty that guides them as they pursue their conservation management work. The Q-sort analysis suggested three different factors that reflected their expressed views: (1) a biocentric perspective (moral status given to all living things in nature) but with strong negative linkage toward vultures having value for human use (non-anthropocentric intrinsic value), (2) an environmental virtue ethics perspective (moral values are based on a person's character rather than whether specific actions are right or wrong) with consideration given toward vultures having possible value for human use, and (3) an ecocentric perspective (holistic, wherein moral consideration is given to both species and ecosystems) that was neutral with regard to vultures having value for human use (intrinsic value). Insights gained from this study represent an initial step in elucidating stakeholder perspectives and will contribute to the conservation of African vultures.

Monitoring established Crohn’s disease with pan-intestinal video capsule endoscopy in Europe: clinician consultation using the nominal group technique

Objective Monitoring established Crohn’s disease (CD) through a “treat-to-target” strategy aims to reduce and prevent long-term bowel damage and disability. Despite the availability of different monitoring techniques, there is a current lack of integrated evidence to guide optimal monitoring in terms of appropriate tools and timing. Pan-intestinal video capsule endoscopy (PCE) enables non-invasive and direct visualization of the entire intestinal tract with proven safety and efficacy. This study aims to generate insights on the value of PCE for monitoring established CD from the physician’s perspective. Methods The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) was used to create discussion around pre-defined research questions aimed at identifying target patient populations for PCE, benefits of PCE in terms of improving disease management, comparative benefits of PCE over standard of care, research priorities to ratify the use of PCE, and hurdles to PCE utilization. A NGT panel was held in Brussels, Belgium in October 2018 with 9 gastroenterology experts. Data were collected from multiple rankings of statements to the research questions and analyzed descriptively. Results Consensus indicated that PCE is differentiated from other diagnostic tools, allowing for non-invasive and direct visualization of the luminal intestinal tract in one single procedure. Participants agreed that PCE is beneficial for mapping and grading established CD in all patients, enabling individual and tailored treatment decision-making. Time required to read PCE results was identified as the main utilization hurdle by participants. Well-designed studies are needed to confirm improved outcomes amongst patients with CD managed through a PCE-guided approach. Conclusions This study, using the NGT, generated expert opinion on the value of PCE for monitoring established CD in terms of target patient populations and benefits compared to other diagnostic modalities. Participants perceived PCE to facilitate a “treat-to-target” strategy for CD management. Further research is needed to support this value perception.

A Bigger Q ‐ Evaluating the impact of pandemic‐related course changes on students’ learning experiences

Background There is no clear way to know how changes in a course have impacted the student learning experience. In a recent series of studies, our group established Q-methodology as a robust alternative to traditional Likert-scale course evaluations. Through utilizing a revised statement ranking system, and combining qualitative and quantitative analysis methods, Q-methodology mitigates issues of disparate feedback, and averaged scores which make Likert-scale data difficult to interpret and act upon. Our previous work has demonstrated that students can be statistically grouped based upon shared opinions, preferences and values, and that evidence-based course reform decisions can be made with this information. In a remarkable year, requiring significant and rapid adjustment to accommodate pandemic-related measures, understanding how students perceived their course experience is important not only to examine outcomes but ensure future evidence-based changes are possible. Objective Through sequential Q-methodology course evaluations, this study evaluates how course changes, made in response to emergency pandemic teaching/learning, alter students’ perceptions of their course experience. Methods In 2019 and 2020, students in a multi-disciplinary undergraduate anatomy and physiology course were asked to complete the same Q-methodology course evaluation, ranking 37 statements relative to each other at year end. Between academic years, significant changes in course delivery (laboratory and tutorial sessions moved online) as well assessment modality (multiple choice exams changed to a group assignment) were made. Data from both 2020 (n=64) and 2019 (n=125) were analyzed together via by-person factor analysis, and factors were interpreted using Q-methodology conventions. Participant distributions across the factors were compared between cohorts (2020 vs 2019) and across demographics via Pearson's Chi-square test. Results A three-factor solution statistically grouped students with a generally 1) positive, 2) negative and 3) neutral disposition toward the course. Those in the 2019 and 2020 cohorts were significantly differently distributed amongst the factors (p = 0.006), such that a greater proportion of the 2020 vs 2019 cohort (58% vs 37%) expressed dissatisfaction with the course. Primarily, dissatisfaction surrounded issues with course structure and assessment – two aspects which were significantly altered in response to the 2020 pandemic. Demographics were not significantly different across factors. Conclusion Clear evidence for course reform relies upon knowing what worked, and what didn't. In this case, while a negative shift in disposition seems unremarkable, Q-methodology uncovered key elements contributing to student dissatisfaction which are important to consider as programs consider online-learning as a long-term option.

Societal views in the Netherlands on active disinvestment of publicly funded healthcare interventions.

To obtain public support for the active disinvestment (i.e. policy decision to stop reimbursement) of healthcare interventions, it is important to have insight in what the public thinks about disinvestment and which considerations they find relevant in this context. Currently, evidence on relevant considerations in the disinvestment context is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the societal views in the Netherlands on the active disinvestment of healthcare interventions and obtain insight into the considerations that are relevant for those holding the different views. A Q-methodology study was conducted among a purposively selected sample of citizens (n=43). Data were collected in June and July 2019. Participants individually ranked a set of 43 statements broadly covering the issues that participants could consider relevant in the disinvestment context, from 'least agree' to 'most agree'. Qualitative feedback on the statement ranking was collected from each participant using a questionnaire. Principal component analysis followed by oblimin rotation was used to identify clusters of participants with similar statement rankings. These clusters/factors were interpreted as distinct viewpoints using the factor arrays and qualitative questionnaire responses of participants. Four viewpoints were identified. People holding viewpoint I believe that reimbursement of necessary healthcare should be maintained, irrespective of its costs. People holding viewpoint II agree with viewpoint I, although they believe that necessity should be objectively determined. People holding viewpoint III think that unnecessary, ineffective and inefficient healthcare should be disinvested. People holding viewpoint IV, consider it most important that disinvestment decision-making processes are transparent and consistent. Insight in the distinct viewpoints identified in this study contributes to a better understanding of why it has been considered difficult to obtain public support for disinvestment of healthcare interventions, and can help policymakers to change their approach to disinvestment to increase public support.

A Combinatorial Testing-Based Approach to Fault Localization

Combinatorial testing has been shown to be a very effective strategy for software testing. After a failure is detected, the next task is to identify one or more faulty statements in the source code that have caused the failure. In this paper, we present a fault localization approach, called BEN, which produces a ranking of statements in terms of their likelihood of being faulty by leveraging the result of combinatorial testing. BEN consists of two major phases. In the first phase, BEN identifies a combination that is very likely to be failure-inducing. A combination is failure-inducing if it causes any test in which it appears to fail. In the second phase, BEN takes as input a failure-inducing combination identified in the first phase and produces a ranking of statements in terms of their likelihood to be faulty. We conducted an experiment in which our approach was applied to the Siemens suite and four real-world programs, flex , grep, gzip and sed , from Software Infrastructure Repository (SIR). The experimental results show that our approach can effectively and efficiently localize the faulty statements in these programs.

Perspectives of general dental practitioners on preventive, patient-centred, and evidence-based oral healthcare—A Q-methodology study

ObjectiveIn the last 30 years, innovations in oral healthcare (OHC), such as advanced restorative techniques, shifts towards preventive and evidence-based care and changes in patients’ expectations, have increased the complexity of clinical decision-making in OHC. Little is known about the perspectives of general dental practitioners (GDPs) on the value of providing preventive, patient-centred and evidence-based OHC. This study aimed to explore the range of perspectives present amongst GDPs on OHC.MethodQ-methodology was used to explore perspectives among 78 GDPs working in the Netherlands. Participants were asked to sort 50 statements representing three central domains in OHC: i.) restorative versus preventative OHC, ii.) disease-centred versus patient-centred OHC and iii.) expertise-based versus evidence-based OHC. Opinion statements about delivering OHC were formulated on the basis of published literature and input from OHC professionals. By-person factor analysis was used to reveal clusters of communality in statement rankings, which were interpreted and formed perspectives on OHC.ResultsFour perspectives, explaining 47% of variance, on OHC were identified amongst GDPs: ‘the patient-focused dentist who values prevention’, ‘the outcome-oriented dentist who values learning from colleagues’, ‘the team player with ultimate care responsibility’ and ‘the dentist who considers oral health the responsibility of the patient.’ConclusionQ-methodology can be effectively used to describe the different perspectives that GDPs have on the challenges of preventive, patient-centred and evidence-based OHC. GDPs should not be seen as a homogenous group; rather they have different views and approaches to the care they provide. This has implications for health systems; awareness of the heterogeneity of practitioners’ perspectives can potentially be used to develop bespoke quality of care improvement strategies that constructively engage with each of these different groups.

How should health policy and practice respond to the increased genetic risk associated with close relative marriage? results of a UK Delphi consensus building exercise

Objectives(1) To explore professional and lay stakeholder views on the design and delivery of services in the area of consanguinity and genetic risk. (2) To identify principles on which there...

Relative importance of informational items in participant information leaflets for trials: a Q-methodology approach

ObjectivesTo identify which information items potential participants and research nurses rank as the most important, and the reasons for this, when considering participation in a randomised controlled trial.DesignQ-methodology approach alongside...

An exploratory study into the traumatic impact of advanced cancer among patients and partners.

People living with cancer may experience both psychological distress and a sense of personal development. These two responses can be conceptualised using theories of post-traumatic stress (PTS) and post-traumatic growth (PTG), respectively. This hospice-based study investigated the range of experiences of people living with advanced cancer and of their partners, with consideration of how theories of PTS and PTG resonated with their accounts. Strategic sampling (n=11) was used to gather data from eight individuals living with advanced cancer and from three individuals caring for someone with the diagnosis. Q methodology was used to investigate the participants’ subjective experiences. A set of 62 statements, informed by theories of trauma, were sorted by the participants according to the extent to which the individual statements were consistent with their personal experiences of living with cancer. The participants were then interviewed about their Q sorts, to consider the personal meanings that had informed their statement rankings. The Q sort data were factor analysed, and theories of PTS and PTG were used to aid the interpretation of four differing viewpoints: “Accepting and Growing,” “Fearful yet Adapting,” “Resigned and Grieving” and “Traumatised.” These different expressions of the positive and negative feelings associated with living with advanced cancer are considered in relation to professional healthcare provision. The study recommends that future research involve a broader sample of individuals, including patients not accessing hospice care, the partners of this population and cancer healthcare professionals.

The role of enjoyment in exercise for people with arthritis: Four different viewpoints from a Q-methodology study.

There is limited research on the role of enjoyment of exercise among people with arthritis. The aim of the present study was to determine distinct viewpoints on exercise held by people with arthritis, and how enjoyment features in these viewpoints. A Q-methodology study was conducted, which involved two interviews with people with rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis or ankylosing spondylitis (aged 20-85years). In the first interviews, 11 participants helped to create the Q-set, a set of statements reflecting a range of existing views on exercising. In the second interviews, 12 participants (nine of the 11 from the first interviews and three others) ranked the Q-set on a forced quasi-normal distribution of agreement. A Q-method factor analysis was carried out to determine groupings of participants with similar views on exercise. Four groupings were discovered, and defined in terms of rankings of statements and illustrative quotes from the ranking procedure. The first grouping had all changed their exercise habits after diagnosis with arthritis. The second grouping had a shared enjoyment for walking to stay healthy. The third grouping's viewpoints focused on knowledge about how much exercise they should carry out. The fourth grouping shared a sense of importance of being responsible for their health by exercising. These findings provide information about the role that enjoyment plays in motivating people with arthritis to exercise, although enjoyment of exercise was not expressed by all participants. People with arthritis who share these viewpoints on exercise enjoyment may require different forms of advice regarding feasible and enjoyable exercise.

Healthcare professionals' views on patient-centered care in hospitals.

BackgroundPatient-centered care (PCC) is a main determinant of care quality. Research has shown that PCC is a multi-dimensional concept, and organizations that provide PCC well report better patient and organizational outcomes. However, little is known about the relative importance of PCC dimensions. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate the relative importance of the eight dimensions of PCC according to hospital-based healthcare professionals, and examine whether their viewpoints are determined by context.MethodsThirty-four healthcare professionals (16 from the geriatrics department, 15 from a surgical intensive care unit, 3 quality employees) working at a large teaching hospital in New York City were interviewed using Q methodology. Participants were asked to rank 35 statements representing eight dimensions of PCC extracted from the literature: patient preferences, physical comfort, coordination of care, emotional support, access to care, continuity and transition, information and education and family and friends. By-person factor analysis was used to reveal patterns of communality in statement rankings, which were interpreted and described as distinct viewpoints.ResultsThree main viewpoints on elements important for PCC were identified: “treating patients with dignity and respect,” “an interdisciplinary approach” and “equal access and good outcomes.” In these viewpoints, not all dimensions were equally important for PCC. Furthermore, the relative importance of the dimensions differed between departments. Context thus appeared to affect the relative importance of PCC dimensions.ConclusionHealthcare organizations wishing to improve PCC should consider the relative importance of PCC dimensions in their specific context of care provision, which may help to improve levels of patient-centeredness in a more efficient and focused manner. However, as the study sample is not representative and consisted only of professionals (not patients), the results cannot be generalized outside the sample. More research is needed to confirm our study findings.