The European Values Study (EVS) is a large-scale, cross-national and longitudinal research programme on basic human values, initiated in the late 1970s. A product of this research is the Atlas of European Values (AoEV), published by the University of Tilburg in the Netherlands for the second time. The Atlas of European Values offers maps and background information on the opinions of the population in 46 European countries. In chapters about Europe, family, work, religion, politics, society and well-being, diversity and similarities in values patterns are shown. On the website www.atlasofeuropeanvalues.eu maps of the European Values Study are accessible for free. In addition, the website offers different map tools, videos, background information and other teaching materials that are very useful sources of information for geographers and geography teachers. The most important theories to explain the value patterns that the research shows us are modernization theories. In this article, the basic findings on values are explained with respect to the theoretical frame and some examples with a special focus on Turkey are given. The findings challenge geography and other sciences, to what extent mapping the values of Europeans is possible. Two of these challenges are regionalizing the data and exploring the "context" for explaining the differences among countries.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: Family engagement in care for adult inpatients may improve shared decision making in the hospital and the competence and preparedness of informal caregivers to take over the care at home. An important strategy to involve family members in hospital care processes is to include them in (ward) rounds, also called 'family-centered rounds'(FCRs).OBJECTIVES: Summarize the evidence regarding the added value of FCRs from the perspectives of patients, family, and healthcare professionals.METHODS: A review protocol was registered a priori with PROSPERO (number CRD42022320915). The electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycInfo were searched for English-written systematic reviews with a focus on FCRs. The results and methods were presented in line with the PRISMA guidelines, and the methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using the adapted version of the AMSTAR tool.RESULTS: Of the 207 initial records, four systematic reviews were identified covering a total of 67 single studies, mainly performed in critical and pediatric care. Added values of FCR were described at review level, with references to single studies. All four systematic reviews reported an improvement in satisfaction among patients, family, and healthcare professionals, whereby satisfaction is linked to improved communication and interaction, improved situational understanding, inclusion of family in the decision-making process, and improved relationships within the care situation.CONCLUSION: Although only limited research has been conducted on the value of FCRs in the adult non-critical care setting, and despite the existence of a variety of outcome measures, the results available from the pediatric and acute care setting are positive. The findings of the sole study in an adult non-critical patient population are in line with these results. Further research in adult non-critical care is required to verify its effects in this setting.
DOCUMENT
Introduction: Self-management is considered a potential answer to the increasing demand for family medicine by people suffering from a chronic condition or multi-morbidity. A key element of self-management is goal setting. Goal setting is often defined as a moment of agreement between a professional and a patient. In the self-management literature, however, goal setting is regarded as a circular process. Still, it is unclear how professionals working in family medicine can put it into practice. This background paper aims to contribute to the understanding of goal setting within self-management and to identify elements that need further development for practical use. Debate: Four questions for debate emerge in this article: (1) What are self-management goals? (2) What is necessary to accomplish the process of goal setting within self-management? (3) How can professionals decide on the degree of support needed for goal setting within self-management? (4) How can patients set their goals and how can they be supported? Implications: Self-management goals can be set for different (life) domains. Using a holistic framework will help in creating an overview of patients’ goals that do not merely focus on medical issues. It is a challenge for professionals to coach their patients to think about and set their goals themselves. More insight in patients’ willingness and ability to set self-management goals is desirable. Moreover, as goal setting is a circular process, professionals need to be supported to go through this process with their patients.
DOCUMENT
