Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Family-centred care (FCC) is central to care of children and families across healthcare settings. Research exploring FCC is increasing, so there is a need to identify clinical and research priority areas. This review aimed to describe FCC research for children and families in the 21^st century. Studies were sourced from CINAHL, Ovid Medline, and Embase and underwent two-stage screening, guided by a published protocol. Data were extracted on study authorship, author discipline, funding, study methodology, study findings, and use of ‘FCC’. Analysis included descriptive statistics, Pearson’s Chi-Squared tests, and content analysis. Five hundred and seventy-nine articles were included. Most used quantitative methodologies and were published from 2010, predominantly by authors from nursing or medical disciplines. Most studies were conducted in acute care settings, typically in North America, and primarily included nurses or mothers as participants. FCC was typically defined using multiple references, with several key authors identified. Future research should focus on historically underrepresented clinical and geographical areas and include multidisciplinary team members. Increasing cultural and familial diversity in FCC research is also necessary to ensure inclusive FCC practices that are transferrable within and between clinical and geographical settings.

Keywords

Family centred care paediatric care scoping review

Introduction

Family-centred care (FCC) is a holistic, family-focused approach to providing care for infants and children and is widely used in acute, sub-acute, and community care paediatric settings worldwide (Foster, 2015; Kuo et al., 2012; O’Connor et al., 2019). There are multiple definitions of FCC, ranging from ‘an approach to the planning, delivery, and evaluation of health care that is grounded in mutually beneficial partnerships among health care providers, patients, and families’ (Institute for Patient and Family Centred Care, [IPFCC] n.d: 1) to ‘a way of caring for children and their families within health services which ensures that care is planned around the whole family, not just the individual child/person, and in which all family members are recognised as care recipients’. (Shields et al., 2006: 1318).

Foundations of FCC were established in the mid-20^th century (Jolley and Shields, 2009; Kuo et al., 2012; Smith 2018). Before this, many hospitals, particularly in high-income countries, excluded parents from being with their children, sometimes for months at a time, due to fears of spreading disease and perceptions that parents were ill-equipped to care for their sick children (Jolley and Shields, 2009; Smith, 2018; Watts et al., 2014). However, seminal work by Bowlby (1951) and Robertson (1958) demonstrated significant negative psychological consequences for hospitalised children separated from their parents. Their works were published at a time when there was already increased focus on psychological wellbeing following widespread separation of children from their families during World War II (Jolley and Shields, 2009). Groups and organisations were established, such as the Association for Care of Children’s Health (established 1987) and Institute of Family Centred Care (established 1992) in the USA, the Platt Report (1959) and Action for Sick Children Movement (1961) in the United Kingdom (Jolley and Shields, 2009; Smith, 2018; Watts et al., 2014). These organisations and reports were pivotal in lobbying for improvements in hospitalised children’s care, including parents throughout a child’s hospital stay, and improving nursing training on child welfare (Jolley and Shields, 2009; Smith 2018).

Early models of FCC, such as ‘care-by-parent' and ‘partnership in care’ focused on involvement of a child’s parents, typically mothers, in providing physical and emotional care for children in hospital settings (Harrison, 2010; Jolley and Shields, 2009; Smith, 2018; Watts et al., 2014). A formal definition of FCC was first provided in 1987 by Shelton et al. (1987); however, disagreements remain regarding what FCC is, how to implement it, and whether it provides measurable benefits to children and their families (Coyne et al., 2018; Mikkelsen and Frederiksen, 2011; O’Connor et al., 2019; Uniacke et al., 2018). Several recent literature reviews and concept analyses identified common attributes of FCC in hospital and community-based healthcare settings: negotiation; trust; respect; open communication; collaboration and partnership between families and healthcare teams; parental empowerment and involvement; and recognising family units as a constant in children’s lives (Coyne et al., 2018; Foster, 2015; Kuo et al., 2012; Lor et al., 2016; Mikkelsen and Frederiksen, 2011; O’Connor et al., 2019; Shields et al., 2006; Smith, 2018; Watts et al., 2014). However, many of these common attributes are underpinned by Western cultural norms and ideals, with cross-cultural translation and acceptability of FCC into other cultures still unclear (Mikkelsen and Frederiksen, 2011).

Vast amounts of research explore the concept of FCC, with topics ranging from measuring family-centred outcomes (Davidson et al., 2017; Kuhlthau et al., 2011; Kuo et al., 2011; Watts et al., 2014), to investigating effects of family-centred rounds (Rea et al., 2018) and exploring staff and family experiences of FCC provision (Bellin et al., 2011; Goldfarb et al., 2017). Anecdotal evidence suggests that research into FCC is more prominent in some specialty areas and geographic locations than others (e.g. limited research from low- or middle-income countries), and that some research methods have been used more extensively than others, however, this has not been systematically explored. Mapping the current FCC landscape in paediatric acute, sub-acute and primary healthcare may guide future research and identify areas of priority focus.

Aim

To describe the extent and nature of research on child- and family-centred care for children and their families in the 21^st century.

Methods

We developed and published a protocol to guide this review (Butler et al., 2021), informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2017, 2020; Pickering and Byrne, 2013; Pollock et al., 2023). We used the Preferred Reporting Guidelines for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist (Tricco et al., 2018). Scoping review methodology facilitated iterative searching and data extraction processes, as authors became familiar with the evidence base (Peters et al., 2017; Pollock et al., 2023).

Search strategy

We developed a search strategy to identify research on Population: infants, children, adolescents, parents, and extended family members; Phenomenon of interest: family-centred care and synonyms; and Context: hospital, acute care, community care, outpatient care, primary care, school care, and hospice care. We developed search strategies in collaboration with a Senior Research Librarian. Literature searches were conducted using the Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), MEDLINE, and Embase in July 2021. Backwards searching was conducted using reference lists of identified FCC-related systematic reviews. Full search strategies, including FCC synonyms, can be viewed in Supplemental Material A.

Study selection process

Identified articles were downloaded and imported into Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, 2023) for management and screening. After duplicates were removed, all articles underwent a two-stage screening process. First, title and abstract screening was undertaken from August to December 2021, according to pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 1). Each article was screened by two authors, with all authors involved in screening. Disagreements were independently re-screened by a third author (AEB, LR, EH, LM) for a final decision. A full-text screening flowchart (Figure 1) was then developed and piloted by AEB, LR, and EH. Of note, after piloting our flowchart, by consensus, we elected to modify it, with refined inclusion criteria so that articles were only included if FCC or a synonym was present in the study aims or methods: that is, we no longer included articles if FCC was mentioned in the title but nowhere else. The rationale was that we aimed to map research that focused on exploring FCC or used FCC methods or outcome measures, rather than articles with incidental findings or recommendations related to FCC. The revised flowchart was used by the team to conduct full-text screening from April to August 2022, with disagreements resolved by discussion between the joint first authors (AEB and LR). A flowchart of search processes is presented in Figure 2.

Table 1.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Reason	Inclusion	Exclusion
Incorrect focus	The term ‘Family/patient/child centred/integrated (+/− care)’ is mentioned in the title, aim, or study methods	The term ‘Family/patient/child centred/integrated care’ is not mentioned in the study title, aim or study methods
Incorrect population	Child health context	Does not explicitly state child health focus
Incorrect population	Child health context	Explores family/patient/child centred/integrated care in a non-paediatric or population-wide context (e.g. specifically during pregnancy, general medical practice where children are not explicitly mentioned)
Incorrect methodology	Any qualitative or quantitative methodology or systematic review where data are collected from or about individuals	Other literature reviews (e.g. narrative review, scoping review, critical review), opinion pieces, discussion pieces, editorials, and abstracts of conferences presentations that have not otherwise been published in a peer-reviewed report
Incorrect setting	Research conducted in, on, or about CFCC in the hospital/acute care setting or any community-based care setting	Research conducted in, on, or about CFCC in non-hospital or community-care based settings
Too old	Published during or since 2000	Published before 2000
Non-English publication	Published in English	Published in language other than English
Full text not available	Full text of article available	Full text cannot be sourced

Figure 1.

Stage 2 screening flowchart.

Figure 2.

PRISMA diagram.

Data extraction

Based on the magnitude of articles included in this review, we split data extraction and analysis into two parts: Part one, a descriptive analysis of study characteristics, reported in this paper; and part two, a thematic analysis, planned as a subsequent publication. After full-text screening, the primary authors developed a data extraction tool. Pilot testing was conducted on a small number of included articles by (AEB, LR, EH, KE and CA). Extracted data included: article title, journal, publication year, discipline of lead and last authors, region of the study setting, aims, methods (i.e. recruitment, mode of data collection, and planned data analysis), study results, where FCC was mentioned in-text, and whether this included reference to a FCC definition. During extraction, we expanded on what was outlined in the protocol to include data related to individual study funding to enable an analysis of associations between funding and author discipline or study setting.

We undertook data extraction between September 2022 and January 2023. Five per cent of articles were reviewed by (AEB) for accuracy and consistency, with additional random spot checks undertaken throughout.

Data analysis and synthesis

Once data extraction was complete, quantitative results were exported into a Microsoft Excel (Version 2403) spreadsheet for quantitative analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to provide a quantitative overview of included articles, with Pearson Chi-Squared tests used to explore differences between studies. We were interested in the ways in which studies of FCC were funded. In order to explore this, we carried out three chi-square analyses exploring the role of study location and discipline and last author on funding for the study. FCC definition data were imported into NVivo 12 (QSR International, 2022) to facilitate a content analysis of terminology and references authors used to conceptualise FCC.

Results

Demographic and geographical findings

Five hundred and seventy-nine articles were included: 334 (57.7%) quantitative studies, 114 (19.7%) qualitative studies, 69 (11.9%) mixed methods studies, 21 (3.6%) systematic reviews, nine (1.6%) program development and/or evaluation studies, 11 (1.9%) quality improvement projects, 20 (3.5%) instrument development or testing articles, and one other (see Supplemental Material B, DOI: 10.26181/24021483 and Table 2 for an overview of included studies). More than 80% of FCC research was published since 2010 (Figure 3), predominantly by authors affiliated with nursing or medical disciplines. Of these, 266 (54.1%) reported they received funding for their study, 89 (15.4%) had no funding, and 177 (30.5%) did not provide a funding statement.

Table 2.

Overview of included studies.

		n (%)
Methodology	Quantitative	334 (57.69%)
	Qualitative	114 (19.69%)
	Mixed/multi-method	69 (11.92%)
	Systematic review	21 (3.63%)
	Instrument development and testing	20 (3.45%)
	Quality improvement	11 (1.9%)
	Program development and/or evaluation	9 (1.55%)
	Delphi study	1 (0.17%)
	Total (N = )	579 (100%)
Discipline of lead author	Allied health	41 (7.08%)
	Medicine	212 (36.61%)
	Nursing	167 (28.84%)
	Research centre or university	5 (0.86%)
	Other	55 (9.5%)
	Unclear/not specified	99 (17.1%)
Discipline of last author^a	Allied health	24 (4.15%)
	Medicine	219 (37.82%)
	Nursing	129 (22.28%)
	Research centre or university	80 (13.38%)
	Other	94 (16.23%)
	Unclear/not specified	73 (12.61%)
Funding	Yes	313 (54.06%)
	No	89 (15.37%)
	No funding statement provided	177 (30.57%)
Geographical region for data collection^b	North America	358 (61.83%)
	Europe	110 (19%)
	Oceania	46 (7.94%)
	Middle East	31 (5.35%)
	Asia	30 (5.18%)
	Central and South America	17 (2.94%)
	Southeast Asia	11 (1.9%)
	Africa	3 (0.52%)
	Unspecified	8 (1.38%)
Study setting	Hospital	360 (62.18%)
	Community	173 (29.88%)
	Both	19 (3.28%)
	Unclear	27 (4.66%)
Where FCC was mentioned in the article	Study aims	452 (78.07%)
Where FCC was mentioned in the article	Study methods	512 (88.43%)

^aSeven articles were published as a single author publication, 41 authors had more than one affiliation.

^bFifteen articles were conducted in more than one region.

Figure 3.

Publication frequency by year.

There was an association between discipline of first authors and study funding X²(14) = 32.654, 95% CI [0.002, 0.005]. Authors with a background in medicine were more likely to be part of a funded study. There was also an association between the discipline of last authors and study funding X²(18) = 30.156, 95% CI [0.028, 0.035], whereby authors from medicine were more likely to be funded.

Most FCC research was conducted in North America, with 314 of 579 studies (54.2%) conducted in the United States of America (Supplemental Material C). European FCC research was undertaken in the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Italy, and the Nordic region, collectively making up 19.1% of included articles. In contrast, countries in Africa and Southeast Asia were least represented (0.5% and 1.9%, respectively).

Most research was conducted in hospital or acute care settings (n = 360; 62.2%), in neonatal intensive care units, general hospital wards, paediatric intensive care units, or included hospitals more broadly (Supplemental Material D). Community-based research accounted for 29.9% of included articles, and primarily focused on patient-centred medical homes, primary healthcare settings, community healthcare settings, and school-based health care. Remaining studies were conducted across both settings (3.3%) or were unclear (0.5%). There was no association between where studies were conducted and their funding X²(10) = 14.930, 95% CI [0.127, 0.141].

Overview of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed/multi-method articles

Quantitative research methodologies were reported in 334 articles (57.7%) and mostly undertaken by lead authors with medical affiliations (n = 246; 42.5%). Table 3 presents an overview of methodologies, data collection methods, and data analysis methods used. Most articles identified cross-sectional surveys as the primary mode of data collection. Experimental studies, both randomised and non-randomised, accounted for only 20.4% of all included quantitative articles.

Table 3.

Quantitative study methods.

	Number of studies (n = 334)
Study methodology^a
Cross sectional study	219 (65.67%)
Randomised controlled trial	34 (10.18%)
Cohort study	35 (10.48%)
Non-randomised experimental study	34 (10.18%)
Case control	3 (0.9%)
Unclear	8 (2.4%)
Other	26 (7.78%)
Primary author
Medicine	142 (42.51%)
Nursing	68 (20.36%)
Allied health	28 (8.38%)
Research centre	24 (7.19%)
Other	35 (10.48%)
Unclear	37 (11.08%)
Data collection methods^b
Survey	279 (83.53%)
Chart reviews	61 (18.26%)
Observations	31 (9.28%)
Interviews	20 (5.99%)
Pre-existing literature	3 (0.9%)
Focus groups	1 (0.3%)
Unclear	9 (2.69%)
Other	17 (5.09%)
Data analysis methods^c
Descriptive statistics	272 (81.44%)
Non-parametric analysis	153 (45.81%)
Regression	140 (41.92%)
t test	86 (25.75%)
Comparison of means	57 (17.07%)
Correlation	51 (15.27%)
Structural equation modelling	13 (3.89%)
Other	73 (21.86%)
Unclear	8 (2.4%)

^aTwenty studies employed more than one methodology.

^bSixty-seven studies used more than one mode of data collection.

^cAll except 37 studies used more than one method of data analysis.

One hundred and fourteen articles (19.7%) identified primarily qualitative methodologies. As seen in Table 4, 42.1% of lead authors of qualitative articles identified nursing affiliations, with only 25.4% listing medical affiliations. Whilst 39.5% of qualitative articles did not identify research methodologies used, of those that did, most used descriptive qualitative, phenomenological, or grounded theory approaches. Most qualitative data were collected through interviews (78.9%) and analysed using thematic or content analysis.

Table 4.

Qualitative study methods.

	Number of studies (n = 114)
Study methodology
Descriptive qualitative method	17 (14.91%)
Phenomenology	13 (11.4%)
Grounded theory	12 (10.52%)
Ethnography	7 (6.14%)
Case study	3 (2.63%)
Narrative study	2 (1.75%)
Ethnomethodology	1 (0.88%)
Action research	1 (0.88%)
Unclear	45 (39.47%)
Other	13 (11.4%)
Primary author^a
Nursing	49 (42.98%)
Medicine	29 (25.44%)
Allied health	14 (12.28%)
Research centre	11 (9.65%)
Other	3 (2.63%)
Unclear	16 (14.04%)
Data collection methods^b
Interviews	90 (78.95%)
Focus groups	27 (23.68%)
Observations	17 (14.91%)
Survey	12 (10.53%)
Chart reviews	3 (2.63%)
Pre-existing literature	3 (2.63%)
Unclear	1 (0.88%)
Other	7 (6.14%)
Data analysis methods^c
Thematic analysis	42 (36.84%)
Content analysis	36 (31.58%)
Constant comparative methods	14 (12.28%)
Framework analysis	4 (3.51%)
Narrative analysis	3 (2.63%)
Interpretive phenomenological analysis	3 (2.63%)
Other	30 (26.32%)
Unclear	10 (8.77%)

^aFour primary authors had at least two affiliations.

^bForty-six studies reported using more than one data collection method.

^cTwenty-eight studies reported using more than one data analysis method.

Mixed or multi-methods articles accounted for 11.9% (n = 69) of included research. These were primarily led by authors with nursing (n = 21, 30.4%) or medical (n = 20, 29.0%) affiliations. Most mixed or multi-methods articles reported surveys (78.3%), interviews (55.1%) and focus groups (33.3%) as main methods of data collection, and content analysis (30.4%) and descriptive statistics (82.6%) as main data analysis methods.

Participants in quantitative, qualitative, and mixed/multi-method articles

Figure 4 provides an overview of participant groups identified in qualitative, quantitative, and mixed/multi-methods articles. Of those participants ‘receiving’ FCC (parents, children, and family members), the largest groups represented according to methodological approach were mothers for qualitative studies (40%), children receiving care for quantitative studies (41.6%), and parents for mixed/multi-methods studies (42%). Fathers were less frequently included than mothers in all three study types: qualitative 28.7% versus 40%; quantitative 11% versus 25.9%; and mixed/multi-methods 26.1% versus 33.3%. Siblings appeared in only 2.6% of qualitative studies, 0.9% of quantitative studies, and 1.4% of mixed/multi-method studies.

Figure 4.

Overview of participants in qualitative, quantitative, and mixed/muti-method studies.

Of healthcare provider participants providing FCC, nurses were the largest group in all three study types: qualitative 47.8%; quantitative 23.5%; mixed/multi-methods 36.2% (Figure 4). In contrast, medical staff participated in 26.1% of qualitative studies, 16.7% of quantitative studies, and 18.8% of mixed/multi-method studies. Participation of allied health staff was limited overall, with each allied health specialty generally participating in less than 5% of studies overall. A notable exception was social workers, who participated in 7% of all qualitative studies and 7.2% of mixed/multi-method studies.

Participant exclusion criteria were noted in only 148 of 579 included articles (25.6%). Reasons for participant exclusion are listed in Supplemental Material E. Parents and family members were most often excluded from participation due to lack of proficiency in the primary language of the country where the research was conducted. Most commonly, this was listed as an inability to communicate sufficiently in English. Other reasons included being younger than 18 years of age or felt to be suffering from severe distress or mental health issues. Children and their families were typically excluded if children were deemed at risk of dying during the study, were ‘too unwell’, had significant additional co-morbid conditions, or when families had significant social or legal issues, for example, child protective services were involved.

Family-centred care frameworks and definitions

FCC (or a synonym) was mentioned in study aims of 454 articles, with 515 mentioning FCC in study methods. Of 579 studies, 313 defined FCC or a synonym (54.1%). Of these, 146 referred to one of six key authors to define this concept. The American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP), Institute for Patient- and Family-Centred Care (IPFCC), and/or Committee for Hospital Care were the most referenced sources used to define FCC, collectively cited in 82 articles. Others included works by Shields et al. (cited by 38 articles), Kuo et al. (n = 21), and Coyne (n = 13). However, most articles (n = 218 of 313; 69.6%) used alternative sources to define FCC. Over half of articles defining FCC cited more than one source (n = 166 of 313; 53.0%). Fifty articles defined FCC without citing any source.

Additional FCC-related terminologies were defined in 112 articles. Seven articles referred to Child-Centred Care (CCC), with Coyne et al. (2016) serving as a significant reference. Family-Centred Medical Homes were frequently cited, appearing in 65 articles, most of which referenced the AAP. Family-centred Rounding was also extensively discussed, with 37 articles and numerous other sources, including Foster (2015), Mittal (2010), and Sisterhen (2007).

Despite considerable references to FCC and its associated terms, 125 (21.5%) articles lacked definitions.

Discussion

This scoping review describes the extent and nature of research on family-centred care for children and their families in the 21^st century. We identified 579 studies that explored FCC across a range of healthcare settings, most of which were published during or after 2010. Our findings demonstrate that FCC research has displayed a generally upward trajectory since the early 2000s, with a few notable exceptions. We found a decline in publications during 2008 and again in 2015; however, reasons for these declines are unclear. In addition, there was a notable increase in the number of publications in 2013. This increase may be a response to work published by FCC expert Linda Shields and colleagues between 2010 and 2012, calling for further research on FCC for children in hospitals (Shields, 2010; Shields et al., 2012a; Shields et al., 2012b). Of note, our review only included literature up to March 2021.

Although we included research published during the first year of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we suspect most of this will have been conducted and submitted for publication before or early in the pandemic. As noted by Foster and Blamires (2023), COVID-19 had a major impact on research activities in many parts of the world and substantially limited family access to many hospital and community settings for prolonged periods. An upward trend in publication numbers noted in our findings may not reflect research output in all areas. For example, whilst FCC research in acute care settings may have potentially declined due to pandemic-related visiting restrictions, it is possible that FCC research in community-based settings may have increased with additional use of telehealth consultations. Future reviews may uncover consequences of COVID-19 on both provision of and research into FCC.

Nursing and medical researchers led a substantial portion of FCC research included in this review. While this is not surprising, given that nurses and doctors typically account for the largest proportion of healthcare providers globally (World Health Organization, 2020), it is important to acknowledge that allied health providers also play a key role in delivering holistic, family-centred care to children and their families. Increasing support and involvement of allied health providers, such as physiotherapists, social workers, or psychologists, to lead and participate in FCC research studies would help to increase understanding and successful implementation of family-centred models of care.

We found three times as many quantitative studies than qualitative studies. Most quantitative studies used cross-sectional survey designs, which may be in response to frequent calls for more studies that measure outcomes related to FCC (Harrison, 2010; Jolley and Shields, 2009; O’Connor et al., 2019; Smith, 2018). However, Shields (2010) also called for more experimental studies on FCC, particularly randomised controlled trials. In our review, experimental studies (both randomised and quasi-experimental) only accounted for 20.4% of all quantitative studies, suggesting an ongoing need for more studies that directly measure multiple outcomes of FCC, including satisfaction with care, and health or care outcomes related to FCC provision. In addition, we found only 20 articles focusing on developing, translating, or validating new measurement tools since 2000. Further research is needed to identify whether tools developed before 2000 are fit-for-purpose in 21^st century care, or whether, as noted by Kuo et al. (2012), more research is needed to develop and test outcome measurement tools for FCC.

Our review highlighted the predominance of studies conducted in North America and Europe (particularly Western Europe and the Nordic region). This may not be surprising in the context of traditionally Western-centric origins of FCC concepts. There are significant cultural and operational considerations related to appropriateness and implementation of FCC in low- or middle-income settings and for culturally and linguistically diverse populations in high-income countries (Al-Motlaq and Shields, 2017; Shields, 2010). Calls for FCC research in more culturally diverse populations have been present in the literature for many years (Dennis et al., 2017; O’Connor et al., 2019; Watts et al., 2014). Our review demonstrates that research is still needed, particularly exploring the relevance, applicability, and impacts of FCC in regions outside of North America and Europe.

We also found that most research on FCC was conducted in acute care settings rather than community-based settings, with a particular focus on FCC in neonatal intensive care units (ICUs). This finding is despite on-going recognition of the importance of families and FCC to the care of children with a variety of complex chronic conditions in both hospital and community settings (Al-Motlaq et al., 2019; McConkey et al., 2023; Watts et al., 2014) and in population-based preventative health care. We recommend researchers consider expanding their foci to include less-explored areas, particularly areas that traditionally have significant and prolonged family involvement, such as palliative care or neurology. We recommend a focus on research exploring FCC provision in community-based care services to understand and evaluate ongoing provision of FCC following discharge from acute care settings, as suggested by Harrison (2010) and Watts et al. (2014) .

This review highlights the role of organisations such as AAP, IPFCC, and Committee on Hospital Care in defining the concept of Family-Centred Care within research communities. Based on the frequency with which these organisations are cited, our findings indicate they are key contributors to FCC discourse. Despite these influential professional FCC sources, diverse citation sources, varying terminologies, and absent definitions demonstrate complexity and multiplicity of FCC as a concept. Over the past two decades, we have seen evolution and adaptation of FCC concepts: consensus about what constitutes FCC is yet to be realised.

Given that achieving a unified definition of FCC may not be possible or even desirable, it is vital that authors undertaking FCC research clearly identify the FCC definition used to underpin their study, to improve transparency and transferability of research findings into clinical practice.

We also examined which participants were or were not included in FCC studies. For those receiving FCC, participants were most commonly mothers (particularly for qualitative studies) or ill children (particularly for quantitative studies), with fathers also taking part in almost one-third of qualitative studies. Notably, other family members rarely participated in FCC studies, particularly those quantitative in nature. Our findings align well with those of both Mikkelsen and Frederiksen (2011) and Kokorelias et al. (2019), demonstrating that while family-centred care is espoused in clinical practice, our collective understandings of FCC as a concept are based on experiences of mothers, ill children and, to a lesser extent, fathers.

Potential participants were commonly excluded from FCC research because of their limited English language ability, because the clinical or research team felt they were too distressed, or because children were deemed to be too unwell for child and family to take part in research. However, only one-quarter of articles reported their exclusion criteria, so the true nature of participant exclusion in FCC research remains unknown. We strongly recommend future research focusses on including perspectives of underrepresented or excluded groups, such as siblings, extended family members and non-English speaking families, to ensure future FCC research is both family-centred and culturally safe (Lor et al., 2016).

Strengths and limitations

This review was strengthened by developing a review protocol prior to commencement. In addition, including diverse literature ensured a broad representation of different research contexts and contributed to a detailed and in-depth depiction of the current state of FCC research. As expected for a scoping review (Peters et al., 2017), iterative changes to the protocol were made due to the scale and scope of identified articles: transparency in reporting these changes supports the review’s rigour. Our review findings were limited by excluding articles published in languages other than English. This may have biased reporting of research conducted in countries that do not primarily speak or publish in English and limited our understandings of the scope of FCC research in culturally diverse settings. In addition, poorly or inconsistently described author data (particularly affiliations and funding) and study methods (particularly geographical location, data collection and analysis methods, and exclusion criteria) limited our ability to accurately extract and report data and may have led to underreporting of some study methods or locations. Although we only extracted affiliation data for first and last authors, this approach is unlikely to have impacted our ability to accurately report the interdisciplinary leadership of FCC research. Finally, we were limited by the information provided by study authors in their titles and abstracts. It is possible that relevant studies were not identified for inclusion in this review because of a lack of terms related to FCC mentioned in the title, aims, or study methods. Moving forward, we strongly recommend that authors carefully consider their titles and abstracts, to maximise identification and inclusion in future literature reviews.

Conclusion

Family-centred care is a core component of healthcare for children and their families, and an important focus for paediatric healthcare research. This review outlined the current state of FCC research in paediatrics, identifying clinical and geographical areas and methodologies that have received significant attention to date and highlighting areas for future focus. Our review’s findings may inform future research designs that consider multidisciplinary research teams, various study designs, and a range of clinical and geographical study locations. Such initiatives can promote provision of FCC that is equitable, inclusive, culturally safe, and appropriate across the range of settings and stages of children’s healthcare journeys.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Family-centred care research in paediatrics: A scoping review

Supplemental Material for Family-centred care research in paediatrics: A scoping review by Ashleigh E Butler, Lael Ridgway, Ellen M Henderson, Stacey Hokke, Kristina Edvardsson, Catina Adams, Elly Greenwood, Christine East, Kolsoom Safari, Noushin Arefadib, Lisa McKenna, and Beverley Copnell in Journal of Child Health Care.

Footnotes

Author contributions

Dr Ashleigh Butler conceptualized and designed the study, designed the data collection and screening instruments, collected, screened, and analysed the data, drafted the initial manuscript, and critically reviewed and revised the manuscript. Dr Ellen Henderson and Ms Lael Ridgway conceptualized and designed the study, designed the data collection and screening instruments, screened and analysed the data, and critically reviewed and revised the manuscript. Ms Elly Greenwood, Dr Stacey Hokke, Dr Catina Adams, Dr Kolsoom Safari and Dr Noushin Arefadib, Associate Professors Kristina Edvardsson and Bev Copnell, and Professors Christine East and Lisa McKenna designed the study, screened and analyzed the data, and critically reviewed and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Research assistance for this study was funded by La Trobe University.

ORCID iDs

Ashleigh E Butler

Lael Ridgway

Kristina Edvardsson

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Appendix

References

Al-Motlaq

Shields

(2017) Family-centered care as a western-centric model in developing countries: luxury versus necessity. Holistic Nursing Practice 31(5): 343–347, Baltimore, Maryland: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Al-Motlaq

Carter

Neill

, et al. (2019) Toward developing consensus on family-centred care: an international descriptive study and discussion. Journal of Child Health Care: For Professionals Working with Children in the Hospital and Community 23(3): 458–467.

Bellin

Osteen

Heffernan

, et al. (2011) Parent and health care professional perspectives on family-centered care for children with special health care needs: are we on the same page? Health & Social Work 36(4): 281–290.

Bowlby

(1951) Maternal Care and Mental Health. Geneva: World Health Organisation.

Butler

Copnell

Edvardsson

, et al. (2021) Child-and-family-centred care research in paediatrics: the state of the science. OSF. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/D98A5

Coyne

Hallström

Söderbäck

(2016) Reframing the focus from a family-centred to a child-centred care approach for children’s healthcare. Journal of Child Health Care: For Professionals Working with Children in the Hospital and Community 20(4): 494–502.

Coyne

Holmstrom

Soderback

(2018) Centeredness in healthcare: a concept synthesis of family-centered care, person-centered care and child-centered care. Journal of Pediatric Nursing 42: 45–56.

Davidson

Aslakson

Long

AC, P

, (2017) Guidelines for family-centered care in the neonatal, pediatric, and adult ICU. Critical Care Medicine 45(1): 103–128.

Dennis

Baxter

Ploeg

, et al. (2017) Models of partnership within family-centred care in the acute paediatric setting: a discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing 73(2): 361–374.

10.

Foster

(2015) A new model: the family and child centered care model. Nursing Praxis in New Zealand 31(3): 4–6.

11.

Foster

Blamires

(2023) Child and family centred care. Journal of Pediatric Nursing 71: A8–A9.

12.

Goldfarb

Bibas

Bartlett

, et al. (2017) Outcomes of patient-and family-centered care interventions in the ICU: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Critical Care Medicine 45(10): 1751–1761.

13.

Harrison

(2010) Family-centered pediatric nursing care: state of the science. Journal of Pediatric Nursing 25(5): 335–343.

14.

Institute for Patient and Family Centered Care (n.d.) What is PFCC? https://www.ipfcc.org/about/pfcc.html (accessed 30 August 2021).

15.

Jolley

Shields

(2009) The evolution of family-centered care. Journal of Pediatric Nursing 24(2): 164–170.

16.

Kokorelias

Gignac

MAM

Naglie

, et al. (2019) Towards a universal model of family centered care: a scoping review. BMC Health Services Research 19(1): 564.

17.

Kuhlthau

Bloom

Van Cleave

, et al. (2011) Evidence for family-centered care for children with special health care needs: a systematic review. Academic pediatrics 11(2): 136–143.

18.

Kuo

Bird

Tilford

(2011) Associations of family-centered care with health care outcomes for children with special health care needs. Maternal and Child Health Journal 15: 794–805.

19.

Kuo

Houtrow

Arango

, et al. (2012) Family-centered care: current applications and future directions in pediatric health care. Maternal and Child Health Journal 16(2): 297–305.

20.

Lor

Crooks

Tluczek

(2016) A proposed model of person-family-and culture-centered nursing care. Nursing Outlook 64(4): 352–366.

21.

McConkey

O’Hagan

Corcoran

(2023) Parental perceptions of family-centred supports for children with developmental disabilities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20(5): 4205.

22.

Mikkelsen

Frederiksen

(2011) Family-centred care of children in hospital - a concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing 67(5): 1152–1162.

23.

Mittal

Ted

Mary

Daniel

, et al. (2010) Family-Centered Rounds on Pediatric Wards: A PRIS Network Survey of US and Canadian Hospitalists. Pediatrics 126(1): 37–43. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-2364

24.

O’Connor

Brenner

Coyne

(2019) Family-centred care of children and young people in the acute hospital setting: a concept analysis. Journal of Clinical Nursing 28(17–18): 3353–3367.

25.

Peters

Godfrey

Khalil

, et al. (2017) 2017 guidance for the conduct of JBI scoping reviews. Joana Briggs Inst Rev Man 13: 141–146.

26.

Peters

MDJ

Marnie

Tricco

, et al. (2020) Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis 18(10): 2119–2126.

27.

Pickering

Byrne

(2013) The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers. Higher Education Research and Development 33: 534–548.

28.

Pollock

Peters

Khalil

, et al. (2023) Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis 21: 520–532.

29.

QSR International (2022) NVivo 12. https://lumivero.com/products/nvivo

30.

Rea

Rao

Hill

, et al. (2018) Families’ experiences with pediatric family-centered rounds: a systematic review. Pediatrics 141(3): e20171883.

31.

Robertson

(1958) Young Children in Hospital. London: Tavistock Publications.

32.

Shelton

Jeppson

Johnson

(1987) Family-centered Care for Children with Special Healthcare Needs. Washington DC: Association for the Care of Children’s Health.

33.

Shields

(2010) Questioning family-centred care. Journal of Clinical Nursing 19(17–18): 2629–2638.

34.

Shields

Pratt

Hunter

(2006) Family centred care: a review of qualitative studies. Journal of Clinical Nursing 15(10): 1317–1323.

35.

Shields

Zhou

Pratt

, et al. (2012a) Family-centred care for hospitalised children aged 0-12 years. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 10(100909747): CD004811. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17253525, Update of: Cochrane Database England: CD004811.

36.

Shields

Zhou

Taylor

, et al. (2012b) Family-centred care for hospitalised children aged 0-12 Years: a systematic review of quasi-experimental studies. JBI library of systematic reviews 10(39): 2559–2592.

37.

Sisterhen

Richard

Majka

, et al. (2007) Defining Family-Centered Rounds. Teaching and Learning in Medicine 19(3): 319–322.

38.

Smith

(2018) Concept analysis of family-centered care of hospitalized pediatric patients. Journal of Pediatric Nursing 42: 57–64.

39.

Tricco

Lillie

Zarin

, et al. (2018) PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine 169(7): 467–473.

40.

Uniacke

Browne

Shields

(2018) How should we understand family-centred care? Journal of Child Health Care: For Professionals Working with Children in the Hospital and Community 22(3): 460–469.

41.

Veritas Health Innovation (2023) Covidence Systematic Review Software. Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation. https://www.covidence.org

42.

Watts

Zhou

Shields

, et al. (2014) Family-centered care for hospitalized children aged 0-12 years: a systematic review of qualitative studies. JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports 12(7): 204–283.

43.

World Health Organization . (2020). State of the world’s nursing 2020: executive summary. World Health Organization. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/331673. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Accessed on May 3rd, 2024, from 9789240003293-eng.pdf (who.int).

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.86 MB