Patient-Centered Care in Resource-Limited Settings: A Critical Review of Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.654361/LJMR.20.2.62Keywords:
Patient-centred care, Knowledge, Attitudes, Practices, Resource-limited settingsAbstract
Patient-centred care (PCC) is emerging as a core principle of high-quality healthcare, where clinical decisions align with patients’ values, preferences, and sociocultural contexts. However, despite strong theoretical and some empirical backing for the impact of PCC on patient satisfaction, adherence, and clinical outcomes compared to standard care, its adoption has been erratic—especially in low- and middle-income settings. This literature review critically appraises Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAP) surrounding PCC, with relevance to Benghazi in Libya and the wider global context. Although healthcare professionals appear to have adequate theoretical knowledge of PCC-related principles, a persistent divide remains between what they know and how they practice in the clinical environment. Value-based models are commonly restricted by entrenched provider-driven attitudes, organisational opposition to change, and system-level so-called competing priorities that place efficiency above patient involvement. Their quality has also been impeded by practical limitations such as poor resourcing, inadequate training and lack of gold standard assessment. Various sociodemographic factors like education, age, sex, and socioeconomic status also add to KAP perspectives and resulting variations in patient experience and engagement. Generally, PCC concepts still exist conceptually in the local context, but they lack the necessary operationalisation to be effective. Educational, organisational, and policy-level interventions are needed to counter these challenges and close the gap between research and practice
Downloads
References
1. Santana MJ, Manalili K, Jolley RJ, Zelinsky S, Quan H, Lu M. How to practice person-centred care: a conceptual framework. Health Expect. 2022;25(2):459-468.
2. Almohammed OA, et al. Knowledge, attitude, and practices associated with COVID-19 among healthcare workers in hospitals: a cross-sectional study in Saudi Arabia. Front Public Health. 2021;9:643053.
3. McCormack B, McCance TV, Wright JA. Person-Centred Nursing: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2015.
4. Hibbard JH, Greene J. What the evidence shows about patient activation: better health outcomes and care experiences; fewer data on costs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(2):207-214.
5. McCormack B, McCance T. Person-Centred Practice in Nursing and Health Care: Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2017.
6. Moore L, Britten N, Lydahl D, Naldemirci O, Elam M, Wolf A. Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of person-centred care in different healthcare contexts: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2023;35(2).
7. Butler JM, et al. Patient-centred care and the electronic health record: exploring functionality and gaps. JAMIA Open. 2020;3(3):360-368.
8. Kwame A, Petrucka PM. A literature-based study of patient-centred care and communication in nurse-patient interactions: barriers, facilitators, and the way forward. BMC Nurs. 2021;20(1):158.
9. Nutbeam D. Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promot Int. 2000;15(3):259-267.
10. Jenkins R, et al. Knowledge, attitudes and practices towards patient-centred care among medical students: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20:23.
11. Ewunetu T, et al. Knowledge, attitude, and practice of cervical cancer screening and associated factors among women in Hawassa City, Southern Ethiopia: a community-based cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2023;18(1):e0280943.
12. Gerteis M, Edgman-Levitan S, Daley J, Delbanco TL, editors. Through the Patient's Eyes: Understanding and Promoting Patient-Centered Care. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1993.
13. McWhinney IR, Freeman TR. Textbook of Family Medicine. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.
14. World Health Organization. Global Strategy on People-Centred and Integrated Health Services. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021.
15. Elfaitouri A, Elshebani AB, Omar RG. Health workers' knowledge, attitude, and practice toward hepatitis B infection at Benghazi Medical Centre. Viral Hepat J. 2023;29(3):124-131.
16. Forero CG. Cronbach's alpha. In: Michalos AC, editor. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Cham: Springer; 2023. p.1505-1507.
17. Mansour M, Badran A, El-Shazly M. Barriers, challenges and way forward for implementation of person-centered care in Eastern Mediterranean Region. Middle East J Fam Med. 2015;13(3):4-11.
18. Bru-Luna LM, Martí-Vilar M, Merino-Soto C, Livia-Segovia J, Garduño-Espinosa J, Toledano-Toledano F. Person-centred care assessment tool with a focus on quality healthcare: a systematic review of psychometric properties. BMC Psychol. 2024;12(1):217.
19. Sagen JS, et al. Patient engagement in the development and delivery of healthcare services. BMJ Open Qual. 2023;12(2):e002309.
20. Carman KL, Dardess P, Maurer M, Sofaer S, Adams K, Bechtel C, Sweeney J. Patient and family engagement: a framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(2):223-231.
21. Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Young SL. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health. 2018;6:149.
22. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155-163.
23. Alzahrani MM, et al. Knowledge and attitude of dentists towards obstructive sleep apnea. Int Dent J. 2022;72(3):315-321.
24. Lim SY, et al. Gender differences in patient-centred care: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2023;106(4):769-781.
25. Farag D, Akpede N, Waterson H, Asogun D, Funmilayo FB, Nnadi C, Azi M, Achioyamen O, Achioyamen D, Sahu A, Verma A, Williams G. The impact of education level on knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards COVID-19 in Edo State, Nigeria. J Public Health (Oxf). 2023;45(Suppl 1):i63-i70.
26. Adebayo AM, et al. Impact of socioeconomic status on patient experience on quality of care for ambulatory healthcare services in teaching hospitals in southeast Nigeria. J Patient Exp. 2020;7(5):874-882.
27. Lloyd B, Elkins M, Innes L. Barriers and enablers of patient and family centred care in an Australian acute care hospital: perspectives of health managers. Patient Exp J. 2018;5(3):55-64
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Anas M. S. Altweel, Moutaz F. Gebril, Aram Elhashem, Hwuida Kh. A. Maghoud, Hussien Hamid, Heithum S. Baiu, Ahmed. S. Mikael, Mahmoud A. Aloriby (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Open Access Policy
Libyan journal of medical Research (LJMR).is an open journal, therefore there are no fees required for downloading any publication from the journal website by authors, readers, and institution.
The journal applies the license of CC BY (a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license). This license allows authors to keep ownership f the copyright of their papers. But this license permits any user to download , print out, extract, reuse, archive, and distribute the article, so long as appropriate credit is given to the authors and the source of the work.
The license ensures that the article will be available as widely as possible and that the article can be included in any scientific archive.
Editorial Policy
The publication of an article in a peer reviewed journal is an essential model for Libyan journal of medical Research (LJMR). It is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editorial, the peer reviewer and the publisher.
Any manuscript or substantial parts of it, submitted to the journal must not be under consideration by any other journal. In general, the manuscript should not have already been published in any journal or other citable form, although it may have been deposited on a preprint server. Authors are required to ensure that no material submitted as part of a manuscript infringes existing copyrights, or the rights of a third party.
Authorship Policy
The manuscript authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution and intellectual input to the research submitted to the journal, including design, performance, interpretation of the reported study, and writing the manuscript. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.
Others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the manuscript but without intellectual input should only be recognized in the acknowledgements section of the manuscript. Also, one of the authors should be selected as the corresponding author to communicate with the journal and approve the final version of the manuscript for publication in the LJMR.
Peer-review Policy
- All the manuscripts submitted to LJMR will be subjected to the double-blinded peer-review process;
- The manuscript will be reviewed by two suitable experts in the respective subject area.
- Reports of all the reviewers will be considered while deciding on acceptance/revision or rejection of a manuscript.
- Editor-In-Chief will make the final decision, based on the reviewer’s comments.
- Editor-In-Chief can ask one or more advisory board members for their suggestions upon a manuscript, before making the final decision.
- Associate editor and review editors provide administrative support to maintain the integrity of the peer-review process.
- In case, authors challenge the editor’s negative decision with suitable arguments, the manuscript can be sent to one more reviewer and the final decision will be made based upon his recommendations.
https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/2413-6069
