Scoping review identifies 40 definitions and 28 models of person-centred care in neonatology, highlighting the need for standardisation.
Background Person- and family-centred care in the field of neonatology (N&FCC) are promoted by many international agencies and scientific societies because of evidence-based benefits for infants, parents and health systems; however, being very broad and evolving concepts, they have not been uniformly defined in operational terms. We conducted a scoping review of literature relevant to N&FCC with the objectives of synthetising: 1) existing definitions; 2) models of care; 3) categories of interventions suggested by each model of care. Methods We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for articles and/or grey literature published until 5 February 2024. For each objective, we considered articles and/or other documents, for any type of newborn. Results The searches yielded 10 771 records. A total of 91 documents were deemed eligible for inclusion. We identified 40 relevant definitions and 28 different models of care of N&FCC. Both definitions and models of care were categorised in four macro-groups, based on their main focus: newborn and developmental care, parental participation to care, no separation between mother-baby, and miscellanea. Out of the 28 models of care, a total of 51 categories of interventions were identified, with a variable number (range 2–17) reported per each model. These were grouped in five macro-categories: individualised neonatal health care; organisation of care, human resources and policies; physical resources; health professionals (HPs) capacity strengthening and support; family empowerment and support. While most models included individualised neonatal care and family empowerment interventions, HPs were frequently neglected as beneficiaries of the intervention: only 11 models incorporated HPs capacity strengthening, only three proposed a wider support for HPs. Conclusions We identified and synthetised numerous definitions, models, and categories of interventions, highlighting the need for further conceptualisation and standardisation around the concept of N&FCC, including the perspective from low-middle income countries', and from both parents and staff involved in care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Togo et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: