Patients with multi-morbidity have complex care needs that often make healthcare delivery difficult and costly to manage. Current healthcare delivery is not tailored to the needs of patients with multi-morbidity, although multi-morbidity poses a heavy burden on patients and is related to adverse outcomes. Patient-centered care and co-creation of care are expected to improve outcomes, but the relationships among patient-centered care, co-creation of care, physical well-being, social well-being, and satisfaction with care among patients with multi-morbidity are not known. In 2017, a cross-sectional survey was conducted among 216 (of 394 eligible participants; 55% response rate) patients with multi-morbidity from eight primary care practices in Noord-Brabant, the Netherlands. Correlation and regression analyses were performed to identify relationships among patient-centered care, co-creation of care, physical well-being, social well-being, and satisfaction with care. The mean age of the patients was 74.46 ± 10.64 (range, 47–94) years. Less than half (40.8%) of the patients were male, 43.3% were single, and 39.3% were less educated. Patient-centered care and co-creation of care were correlated significantly with patients’ physical well-being, social well-being, and satisfaction with care (all p ≤ 0.001). Patient-centered care was associated with social well-being (B = 0.387, p ≤ 0.001), physical well-being (B = 0.368, p ≤ 0.001) and satisfaction with care (B = 0.425, p ≤ 0.001). Co-creation of care was associated with social well-being (B = 0.112, p = 0.006) and satisfaction with care (B = 0.119, p = 0.007). Patient-centered care and co-creation of care were associated positively with satisfaction with care and the physical and social well-being of patients with multi-morbidity in the primary care setting. Making care more tailored to the needs of patients with multi-morbidity by paying attention to patient-centered care and co-creation of care may contribute to better outcomes.

Patient-centered care (PCC) has the potential to entail tailored primary care delivery according to the needs of patients with multimorbidity (two or more co-existing chronic conditions). To make primary care for these patients more patient centered, insight on healthcare professionals’ perceived PCC implementation barriers is needed. In this study, healthcare professionals’ perceived barriers to primary PCC delivery to patients with multimorbidity were investigated using a constructivist qualitative design based on semi-structured interviews with nine general and nurse practitioners from seven general practices in the Netherlands. Purposive sampling was used, and the interview content was analyzed to generate themes representing experienced barriers. Barriers were identified in all eight PCC dimensions (patient preferences, information and education, access to care, physical comfort, emotional support, family and friends, continuity and transition, and coordination of care). They include difficulties achieving mutual understanding between patients and healthcare professionals, professionals’ lack of training and education in new skills, data protection laws that impede adequate documentation and information sharing, time pressure, and conflicting financial incentives. These barriers pose true challenges to effective, sustainable PCC implementation at the patient, organizational, and national levels. Further improvement of primary care delivery to patients with multimorbidity is needed to overcome these barriers.

Background: Patient-centered care (PCC) has been proposed as the way forward in improving primary care for patients with multi-morbidity. However, it is not clear what PCC exactly looks like in practice for patients with multi-morbidity. A better understanding of multi-morbid patients’ views on what PCC should look like and which elements are most important may help to improve care delivery for this vulnerable population. The present study thus aimed to identify views of patients with multi-morbidity on the relative importance of PCC aspects in a Dutch primary care setting. Methods: Interviews were conducted with 16 patients with multi-morbidity using Q-methodology, which combines quantitative and qualitative analyses. The participants ranked 28 statements about the eight dimensions of PCC (patients’ preferences, information and education, access to care, emotional support, family and friends, continuity and transition, physical comfort, and coordination of care) by relative importance. By-person factor analysis using centroid factor extraction and varimax rotation were used to reveal factors that represent viewpoints. Qualitative interview data were used to interpret the viewpoints. Results: The analyses revealed three factors representing three distinct viewpoints of patients with multi-morbidity on what is important for patient-centered care in the primary care setting. Patients with viewpoint 1 are prepared proactive patients who seem to be well-off and want to be in charge of their own care. To do so, they seek medical information and prefer to be supported by a strongly coordinated multidisciplinary team of healthcare professionals. Patients with viewpoint 2 are everyday patients who visit GPs and require well-coordinated, respectful, and supportive care. Patients with viewpoint 3 are vulnerable patients who are less resourceful in terms of communication skills and finances, and thus require accessible care and professionals taking the lead while treating them with dignity and respect. Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that not all patients with multi-morbidity require the same type of care delivery, and that not all aspects of PCC delivery are equally important to all patients.

Background: The present study describes how primary care can be improved for patients with multimorbidity, based on the evaluation of a patient-centered care (PCC) improvement program designed to foster the eight PCC dimensions (patient preferences, information and education, access to care, physical comfort, coordination of care, continuity and transition, emotional support, and family and friends). This study characterizes the interventions implemented in practice as part of the PCC improvement program and describes the experiences of healthcare professionals and patients with the resulting PCC delivery. Methods: This study employed a mixed-methods design. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine general practitioners and nurse practitioners from seven primary care practices in Noord-Brabant, the Netherlands, that participated in the program (which included interventions and workshops). The qualitative interview data were examined using thematic analysis. A longitudinal survey was conducted with 138 patients with multimorbidity from these practices to assess perceived improvements in PCC and its underlying dimensions. Paired sample t tests were performed to compare survey responses obtained at a 1-year interval corresponding to program implementation. Results: The PCC improvement program is described, and themes necessary for PCC improvement according to healthcare professionals were generated [e.g. Aligning information to patients’ needs and backgrounds, adapting a coaching role]. PCC experiences of patients with multimorbidity improved significantly during the year in which the PCC interventions were implemented (t = 2.66, p = 0.005). Conclusion: This study revealed how primary PCC can be improved for patients with multimorbidity. It emphasizes the importance of investing in PCC improvement programs to tailor care delivery to heterogenous patients with multimorbidity with diverse care needs. This study generates new perspectives on care delivery and highlights opportunities for its improvement according to the eight dimensions of PCC for patients with multimorbidity in a primary care setting.

Background: Primary care delivery for multimorbid patients is complex, due to single disease–oriented guidelines, complex care needs, time constraints and the involvement of multiple healthcare professionals. Co-creation of care, based on the quality of communication and relationships between healthcare professionals and patients, may therefore be valuable. This longitudinal study investigates the relationships of co-creation of care to physical and social well-being and satisfaction with care among multimorbid patients in primary care. Methods: In 2017 and 2018, longitudinal surveys were conducted among multimorbid patients from seven primary care practices in Noord-Brabant, the Netherlands (n = 138, age = 73.50 ± 9.99). Paired sample t-tests and multivariate regression analyses were performed. (3) Results: Co-creation of care improved significantly over time (t = 2.25, p = 0.026), as did social well-being (t = 2.31, p = 0.022) and physical well-being (t = 2.72, p = 0.007) but not satisfaction with care (t = 0.18, p = 0.858). Improvements in co-creation of care from T0 to T1 were associated with social well-being (B = 0.157, p = 0.002), physical well-being (B = 0.216, p = 0.000) and satisfaction with care (B = 0.240, p = 0.000). (4) Conclusions: Thus, investment in co-creation of care by primary care practices may lead to better outcomes for multimorbid patients.

Background: Rehabilitation technologies can support recovery and rehabilitation outside clinical settings. However, their adoption remains challenging. Factors such as ease of use, perceived benefits, and social influence play a role, but little is known about how rehabilitation patients perceive their relative importance. Objective: This study aimed to systematically explore the viewpoints of rehabilitation patients regarding the adoption of home-based rehabilitation technology. Methods: Between May and September 2024, this study examined the viewpoints of rehabilitation patients with acquired brain injury regarding the adoption of home-based rehabilitation technology using Q-methodology. A purposive sample of 21 participants ranked 34 opinion statements based on perceived importance and explained their choices during follow-up interviews. By-person factor analysis identified common patterns in how participants ranked the statements. These patterns, referred to as factors or viewpoints, were further interpreted using qualitative interview data. Results: Three viewpoints were identified, each highlighting different factors important for adopting home-based rehabilitation technology: (1) technology supporting rapid recovery, (2) technology supporting independence and self-control, and (3) technology as a supporting partner. Participants consistently emphasized the importance of regaining independence, receiving feedback during exercises, simple and easy-to-use designs, and approval from therapists, while positive reports in mainstream media, support from friends, and reducing travel to rehabilitation centers were considered less important. Conclusions: The findings suggest that rehabilitation patients with acquired brain injury prioritize different factors when adopting home-based rehabilitation technology. While some factors are commonly valued, the diversity in patient viewpoints underscores the need for tailored, user-centered approaches in the design and implementation of these technologies. A one-size-fits-all approach would likely be ineffective in meeting their varying needs.