ABSTRACT
Objectives The Alternative Dialogue (PHD), a dialogue technique which is based on Positive Health, is considered a potential method to improve patient-centred care within the Netherlands. This study aims to provide clarity on the core elements of the PHD and aims to assess to what extent the practical application of the PHD aligns with these core elements.
Design An exploratory qualitative study using semi-structured interviews.
Setting The study was conducted among health professionals working in primary and secondary care in the Netherlands.
Participants Thirteen experts were purposely sampled and included based on their involvement in the development, implementation or research of the PHD. Additionally, seven users, who applied the PHD in patient consultations and worked as a primary or secondary health professional participated, both self-selected and purposively sampled. They were included if they participated in a Positive Health training.
Results The analysis revealed consensus among experts and users about prioritizing the patient’s perspective, adopting a holistic health view, and promoting self-management and empowerment as main guiding principles. Consensus was also found regarding professional attitude, goals and outcomes and implementation conditions. Variability was observed in the role of behaviour change support as a guiding principle. Further, the PHD as intended by its developers seems more structured and comprehensive than often applied in practice. Discrepancies also emerged regarding target patient groups and applicable settings, highlighting the need for customization and tailored guidance within diverse contexts.
Conclusions While there is alignment on the main guiding principles of PHD, there are varying opinions regarding its specific tools and techniques. Clarity in terminology and delineation of the PHD, along with customization for diverse contexts, is crucial to address these challenges and to determine its effectiveness. This study provides initial insights to inform future research and practice in PHD implementation.
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS
As far as known, this is the first scientific study to systematically study the alignment of the core elements of the PHD as regarded by experts, with the practical application across a variety of professions
The deliberate exclusion of a pre-formulated definition of the PHD in the selection criteria attempted to attain a realistic and impartial reflection of the actual application. However, it resulted in a wide variety of interpretations and, in combination with the amount of participating experts, might have caused an abundance of results and a difficulty in identifying and isolating the PHD as a uniformly implemented intervention.
The analysis of data was guided by the Framework Methods to systematically guide the process of theme abstraction and data interpretation.
The selection methods may have resulted in participation bias and/or reporting bias, which may have affected the results.
Due to the nature of the PHD and the effects the Dutch culture and the Dutch healthcare system have on the application of the PHD, the generalizability of the study results cannot be guaranteed.
Competing Interest Statement
MdK and MvV work at the institute for Positive Health, which is a non-profit knowledge centre that stimulates knowledge and provides training and education on Positive Health in the Netherlands.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Research Ethics Committee of Maastricht University Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life sciences gave ethical approval for this work under license FHML/HEP_2021.574.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
