Skip to main content

Is patient-centred care for women a priority for policy-makers? Content analysis of government policies

Abstract

Background

Considerable research shows that women experience gendered disparities in healthcare access and quality. Patient-centred care (PCC) could reduce inequities by addressing the patient’s clinical and personal needs. Healthcare policies can influence service delivery to optimise patient outcomes. This study assessed whether and how government policies recognise and promote PCC for women (PCCW).

Methods

We analysed the content of English-language policies published in Canada from 2010 to 2018 on depression and cardiac rehabilitation – conditions featuring known gendered inequities – that were identified on government websites. We extracted data and used summary statistics to enumerate mentions of PCC and women’s health.

Results

We included 30 policies (20 depression, 10 cardiac rehabilitation). Of those, 20 (66.7%) included any content related to PCC (median 1.0, range 0.0 to 5.0), most often exchanging information (14, 46.7%) and making decisions (13, 43.3%). Less frequent domains were enabling self-management (8, 26.7%), addressing emotions (6, 20.0%) and fostering the relationship (4, 13.3%). No policies included content for the domain of managing uncertainty. A higher proportion of cardiac rehabilitation guidelines included PCC content. Among the 30 policies, 7 (23.3%) included content related to at least one women’s health domain (median 0.0, range 0.0 to 3.0). Most frequently included were social determinants of health (4, 13.3%). Fewer policies mentioned any issues to consider for women (2, 28.6%), issues specific to subgroups of women (2, 28.6%) or distinguished care for women from men (2, 28.6%). No policies included mention of abuse or violence, or discrimination or stigma. The policies largely pertained to depression. Despite mention of PCC or women’s health, policies offered brief, vague guidance on how to achieve PCCW; for example, “Patients value being involved in decision-making” and “Women want care that is collaborative, woman- and family-centered, and culturally sensitive.”

Conclusions

Despite considerable evidence of need and international recommendations, most policies failed to recognise gendered disparities or promote PCC as a mitigating strategy. These identified gaps represent opportunities by which government policies could be developed or strengthened to support PCCW. Future research should investigate complementary strategies such as equipping policy-makers with the evidence and tools required to develop PCCW-informed policies.

Peer Review reports

Background

Healthcare policies can widely influence the quality of service delivery and associated patient outcomes; however, policies frequently fail to reflect and address the needs established by healthcare research. For example, analysis of 150 regional health board policies in England found that 52% mentioned end-of-life care but none specified strategies to support it [1]. Analysis of 21 government physical activity policies in 6 European Union countries found that research was used to justify policy creation but did not inform the policies [2]. Common barriers to the use of evidence cited by policy-makers include a lack of evidence relevant to health policy, cost considerations and an absence of shared understanding about priorities between policy-makers and researchers [3]. A scoping review of 22 studies from 18 countries published from 1999 to 2016 found that tailored interactive workshops supported by goal-focused mentoring and that collaboration with researchers can increase policy-makers’ use of research [4].

The quality of care for women has been a long-standing concern, so whether and how recommendations pertaining to gendered disparities are translated into policy and practice warrants evaluation. In 1995, the Fourth World Conference on Women convened by the United Nations revealed the need to deliver services that are sensitive to the needs and preferences of women [5] and, in 2009, the WHO report, Women and Health, emphasised the need to improve the quality of women’s healthcare services [6]. Since then, the concept of women’s health has broadened from a focus on sexual and reproductive health to a life-course approach that considers other health challenges that affect women during and beyond their reproductive years [7]. Yet, considerable research shows that women are less likely than men to have medical needs addressed, access to a specialist, or report good patient–provider communication [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. Such gendered disparities may be heightened by social determinants of health in both developed [16] and developing countries [17], which may influence women’s access to services or their healthcare experience. Hence, promoting women’s health and well-being by ensuring that healthcare is responsive to gender and the life course is one of 17 goals in the United Nations report Gender Equality in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [18].

Patient-centred care (PCC), originally defined by the Institute of Medicine as healthcare that establishes a partnership among practitioners, patients and their families to ensure that care is attentive to the needs, values and preferences of patients, is one approach to reduce persisting gendered disparities among women because it tailors care to an individual patient’s clinical needs, life circumstances that may reflect social determinants of health and personal preferences [19]. In this way, PCC can overcome potential barriers in access to care at the patient level and improve the healthcare experience. Furthermore, PCC is considered a fundamental element of high-quality healthcare because it has improved patient experience and clinical outcomes for many conditions across settings, including primary, emergency, acute and intensive care [20,21,22]. Hence, PCC was advocated by the United Nations and WHO to mitigate gendered disparities in healthcare quality [5, 6, 18]. There is no universal shared understanding of PCC. Some frameworks include organisation and system-level determinants of access to care. In keeping with the Institute of Medicine definition of PCC as an approach to patient–provider communication, common elements across more than 25 PCC frameworks suggest that clinicians can achieve PCC by fostering a healing relationship, exchanging information, addressing emotions or concerns, managing uncertainty about treatment risks and benefits, engaging patients in decision-making, and enabling self-management [23, 24]. Recommendations generated by consensus among women, women’s health experts, and health system leaders advocate for public health leadership that promotes women’s health by considering gender and health in all government policies [25, 26]. Given the imperative to improve PCC for women (PCCW) and the potential for government policies to guide, incentivise and support health system change and improvement, we aimed to assess if and how government policies recognise and promote PCCW. If found, exemplar policies could be broadly emulated or, if lacking, this would identify opportunities by which government policies could be strengthened to better promote PCCW.

Methods

Approach

This research employed qualitative content analysis of government policies to assess if and how they addressed PCCW [27], an approach commonly used in other policy analyses [1,2,3]. This approach can be used to qualitatively and/or quantitatively describe explicit content in written, verbal or visual communication without any theoretical interpretation. We employed directed/deductive and summative content analysis techniques to describe how policies identified or promoted PCCW (directed/deductive) and enumerate the number and type of policies that addressed PCCW (summative) [28]. To enhance rigour, we addressed reflexivity in all stages of the research through independent analysis by multiple team members (MZ, DK, BN, JR, TF, ARG) and through independent review and interpretation of the findings by the research team, which included researchers with expertise in the conditions of interest, physicians, Chairs of Women’s Health Research, and representatives of quality improvement and professional organisations. We complied with the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research [29]. We obtained data from publicly available sources so informed consent was not needed.

Eligibility

For this study, we included national and provincial policies from Canada. We defined government as a national or regional government, governmental ministry of health, or agency with government-delegated authority over healthcare delivery or monitoring. We defined a policy as a document generated or sponsored by government to guide the planning, organisation, delivery or improvement of healthcare programmes or services. Policies were labelled with a variety of terms, including policy, decision, plan, report, framework or strategy. We used the PICO framework (participants, intervention or issue, comparisons or publication types, outcomes) to inform inclusion criteria. Participants referred to government policies for adults aged 18+ years. Issues referred to policies pertaining to depression or cardiac rehabilitation (or mental or cardiovascular health, more broadly), conditions with known gendered disparities in care and outcomes worldwide [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. For example, compared with men, women with acute myocardial infarction underwent fewer procedures, had significantly higher risk of 30-day readmission, and were less likely to be referred for cardiac rehabilitation; additionally, women reporting depression were less likely to be referred or treated for those symptoms. Policies were also included if they pertained to women’s health in general. Comparisons/publications referred to publicly available government policies published in English language after January 1, 2010. We chose this date to correspond with publication of evidence showing gendered inequities in the conditions of interest [9], and of recommendations for policies to address gender and health [26] in Canada, which may have stimulated the inclusion of PCCW in policies based on raising broad awareness of these issues. Outcomes referred to any goals or objectives specified in the policies for healthcare programmes or services. We excluded policies if they were developed by professional societies or quality improvement agencies, or were clinical guidelines or health technology assessments. The research team reviewed and offered suggestions to refine eligibility criteria.

Searching and screening

Two research associates (MZ, DK) searched the Internet with Google to compile a list of government websites. On those websites, MZ and DK identified eligible policies by searching with keywords (i.e. cardiovascular, cardiac or depression and policy, report, plan, framework, programme or strategy) and browsing with navigation menu options (i.e. publications, condition of interest). Three research associates (MZ, DK, BN) and ARG independently screened a sample of 15 policy titles/descriptions and discussed their results to refine eligibility criteria and the approach to screening. DK and BN then independently screened remaining policy titles/descriptions, periodically consulting with ARG to address uncertainties or discrepancies.

Data collection and analysis

We developed a data extraction form to collect information on policy characteristics (year of publication, government, clinical topic, policy objective), and PCC and women’s health content. PCC content referred to any mention of PCC approaches: fostering a healing relationship, exchanging information, addressing emotions, managing uncertainty or prognosis or treatment outcomes, decision-making, and enabling self-management, which are common domains across widely used PCC definitions and frameworks derived from the recommendations of patients and healthcare professionals [23, 24]. Women’s health content referred to any mention of women’s health, gender considerations or determinants of health among women (i.e. education, socioeconomic status). As a pilot test, DK, BN and ARG independently extracted data from three government policy documents, then compared and discussed results to establish a shared understanding of what to extract. DK and BN independently extracted data from remaining policies. ARG, with help from research assistants JR and TF, resolved uncertainties and discrepancies. We used summary statistics to report policy characteristics, and the number and type of policies that addressed PCC and women’s health. We used text to describe how policies addressed PCC and women’s health. The larger research team reviewed summary data and assisted with interpreting study findings.

Results

Policy characteristics

We identified a total of 30 eligible policies relevant to the conditions of interest [30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59]. Extracted data are included in Additional file 1. Policies were published between 2010 and 2018. With respect to policy topic, 18 (60.0%) pertained to general health, 11 (36.7%) were specific to either depression or cardiac rehabilitation, and 2 (6.7%) were specific to women’s health. By condition, 20 (66.7%) policies addressed depression, and 10 (33.3%) addressed cardiac rehabilitation. Policy objectives were to report on planned strategies or programmes (17, 56.7%), population health audit (8, 26.7%), or evaluation of strategies or programmes (5, 16.7%). Table 1 summarises PCCW content overall and by condition. Table 2 offers examples of PCCW content, both limited and expanded.

Table 1 Patient-centred care for women (PCCW) content in policies overall and by condition
Table 2 Examples of patient-centred care for women (PCCW) content in include policies

Patient-centred care

Among the 30 policies, 20 (66.7%) included content related to at least one PCC domain (median 1.0, range 0.0 to 5.0) (Additional file 2). In those 20 policies, the most frequently included domains were exchanging information (14, 46.7%) and making decisions (13, 43.3%). Less frequent domains were enabling self-management (8, 26.7%), addressing emotions (6, 20.0%) and fostering the relationship (4, 13.3%). No policies included content for the domain of managing uncertainty. A higher proportion of cardiac rehabilitation guidelines included PCC content.

However, even when policies included content related to PCC domains, those descriptions were often brief and vague, offering little to no concrete guidance on what should be done to achieve PCC. For example, one policy recommended to “provide patient and family-centred care that supports the whole person and enables optimal self-management” [53]. In contrast, a more informative policy emphasised engaging patients to foster a sense of responsibility, using support strategies that include assessment, action planning, goal setting or problem solving, offering access to community support services, and following up with reminders [59].

Women’s health

Among the 30 policies, 7 (23.3%) included content related to at least one women’s health domain (median 0.0, range 0.0 to 3.0) and 6 (20.0%) included both PCC and women’s health (Additional file 3). Of the 7 policies that included any women’s health domains, most frequently included were the social determinants of health (4, 13.3%). Fewer policies mentioned any issues to consider for women (2, 28.6%), issues specific to subgroups of women (2, 28.6%) or distinguished care for women from men (2, 28.6%). No policies included mention of abuse or violence, or discrimination or stigma. These largely pertained to policies on depression because only one policy on cardiac rehabilitation addressed women’s health by mentioning the social determinants of health [49].

Despite mention of these factors, no policy offered concrete guidance on how to improve women’s health or gendered disparities. For example, one policy noted that “Women want care that is collaborative, woman- and family-centered, and culturally sensitive” but did not explain how that could be achieved [42]. In contrast, a more informative policy recognised that men and women have different morbidity and mortality patterns, and different health experiences and associated outcomes based on gender, recommending that treatment should be fair [38].

Discussion

Among 30 government policies published from 2010 to 2018 on depression or cardiac rehabilitation – conditions with known gendered inequities in access to and quality of care – many included content relevant to at least one PCC domain considered important by patients and healthcare professionals but offered no concrete guidance on how to achieve PCC. Additionally, few mentioned women’s health or included content about healthcare disparities or guidance on how to address them. Thus, despite considerable evidence of need and international recommendations, policies fail to recognise or promote PCCW.

Few studies prior to this one had examined policies for guidance on gendered inequities in healthcare. In the United States, 51.0% of 77 public health policies at the state, organisational or school level were assessed as being gender aware [60]. A narrative synthesis of literature found that policy reforms or strategies achieved limited success in improving gender equality in health [61]. Four European case studies showed that policies supporting women’s participation in the labour force or decreasing their burden of care reduced gendered inequalities in health status [62, 63]. These studies are relevant but focus on social and public health strategies rather than health services. Our study was unique in that it specifically examined whether and how government health policies incentivised, promoted or guided the planning, delivery, evaluation or improvement of healthcare services to optimise PCC or women’s health. Our findings are consistent with the above-cited work that identified deficiencies in how policies address gendered inequities.

The finding that government health policies do not recognise, emphasise, prioritise or promote PCCW raises two issues with implications for ongoing research. First, we and others [1,2,3] have demonstrated a need to promote the development of evidence-informed policies. Synthesised research showed that interactive workshops or collaboration with researchers can improve the use of research by policy-makers [4]. However, analysis of 131 policies and interviews with policy-makers that developed them found that access to and relationships with researchers increased the interaction between policy-makers and researchers but did not lead to the use of research in policy-making [64]. Hence, more research is needed to understand how to make policies more responsive to the healthcare needs that are clearly demonstrated through research. One option is to equip policy-makers with tools by which they can develop evidence-informed policies. For example, Gavriilidis et al. [65] developed an evaluation framework by which to assess if policies promote gender equity and health. Another option is to equip healthcare professionals with tools by which they can adapt or transform policies into evidence-informed healthcare services. For example, Themessl-Huber et al. [66] generated a framework to evaluate whether programmes are responsive to local contexts and stakeholders. More recently, Canada introduced an action plan at the federal level to engage in evidence-based policy and programme design informed by sex, gender and diversity research [67], and implemented requirements for investigators to address sex and gender in proposals submitted to research funding competitions [68]. These initiatives may incentivise future policies to address PCCW.

Second, in prior research, policy-makers have said that the lack of relevant research is a barrier to developing evidence-informed policies. While considerable evidence has accumulated on gendered disparities in healthcare [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18], less is known about what constitutes PCCW. We synthesised research published from 2008 to 2018 that investigated PCC and included at least 50% women and identified only four studies on depression and one on cardiovascular rehabilitation [69]. More research is needed to fully conceptualise and describe PCCW across different conditions, and to test interventions that improve PCCW. Sharing that evidence with policy-makers could help them to generate policies that address PCCW.

The strengths of our study include the use of rigorous methods for content analysis [27, 28] that involved independent searching, screening and data extraction by multiple individuals, compliance with standards for the reporting of qualitative research [29], and the use of an established PCC framework upon which to map policy content [24]. Several factors may limit the interpretation and application of the findings. The search strategy we employed may not have identified all relevant government policies, plus our search was restricted to English-language policies and did not include French-language policies from the province of Quebec. Furthermore, our review included policies that addressed two clinical topics only, thus it is not known if the findings are transferrable to policies on other clinical topics. There is no universal agreement on what constitutes PCC, thus the PCC framework we employed is not necessarily a gold standard [24], and what constitutes PCC may differ by condition. The PCC framework pertains to patient–clinician interaction and does not necessarily address system-level issues that policies typically address.

Conclusions

Analysis of 30 government healthcare policies from Canada on depression or cardiac rehabilitation revealed that gendered disparities in quality of care remained largely ignored in general, and revealed little recognition of PCC or guidance on how PCC can mitigate gendered disparities in care or improve women’s healthcare experiences more specifically. Despite considerable evidence of gendered inequities in access to and quality of care for depression or cardiac rehabilitation, PCCW has not been prioritised by policy-makers. These identified gaps represent opportunities by which government policies could be developed or strengthened to support PCCW. Other strategies include equipping policy-makers or healthcare professionals with the tools to develop PCCW-informed policies or to adapt policies into PCCW-tailored healthcare services.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

Abbreviations

PCC:

patient-centred care

PCCW:

patient-centred care for women

References

  1. 1.

    Sleeman KE, Leniz J, Higginson IJ, Bristowe K. Is end-of-life care a priority for policymakers? Qualitative documentary analysis of health care strategies. Palliat Med. 2018;32:1474–86.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Hamailainen RM, Aro AR, van de Goor I, Lau CJ, Jakobsen MW, Chereches RM, et al. Exploring the use of research evidence in health-enhancing physical activity policies. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13:43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Van de Goor I, Hamalainen RM, Syed A, Lau CJ, Sandu P, Spitters H, et al. Determinants of evidence use in public health policy making: Results from a study across six EU countries. Health Policy. 2017;121:273–81.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Haynes A, Rowbotham SJ, Redman S, Brennan S, Williamson A, Moore G. What can we learn from interventions that aim to increase policy-makers’ capacity to use research? A realist scoping review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16:31.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    World Health Organization. Fourth World Conference on Women. Geneva: WHO Press; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    World Health Organization. Women and Health. Geneva: WHO Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Langer A, Meleis A, Knaul FM, Atun R, Aran M, Arreola-Ornelas H, et al. Women and health: the key for sustainable development. Lancet. 2015;386:1165–210.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Women’s Health Surveillance Report. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Bierman AS, Johns A, Hyndman B, Mitchell C, Degani N, Shack AR, Creatore MI, Lofters AK, Urquia ML, Ahmad F, Khanlou N, Parlette V. Social Determinants of Health and Populations at Risk. In: Bierman AS, editor. Project for an Ontario Women’s Health Evidence-Based Report, vol. 2. Toronto: St. Michael's Hospital and the Institute of Clinical Evaluative Sciences; 2012.

  10. 10.

    Colella TJ, Gravely S, Marzolini S, et al. Sex bias in referral of women to outpatient cardiac rehabilitation? A meta-analysis. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2015;22:423–41.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Bennett AL, Lavie CJ, Grace SL. Cardiac rehabilitation following acute coronary syndrome in women. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2017;19:57.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Weisz D, Gusmano MK, Rodwin VG. Gender and the treatment of heart disease in older persons in the United States, France, and England: a comparative, population-based view of a clinical phenomenon. Gend Med. 2004;1:29–40.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Whiteman K, Ruggiano N, Thomlison B. Transforming mental health services to address gender disparities in depression risk factors. J Women Aging. 2016;28:521–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Moore JE, Mompe A, Moy E. Disparities by sex tracked in the 2015 National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report: trends across national quality strategy priorities, health conditions, and access measures. Womens Health Issues. 2018;28:97–103.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Salzberg CA, Hayes SL, McCarthy D, Radley DC, Abrams MK, Shah T, Anderson GF. Health system performance for the high-need patient: a look at access to care and patient care experiences. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2016;27(8):1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Carter A, Borrero S, Wessel C, Washington DL, Bean-Mayberry B, Corbelli J. Racial and ethnic health care disparities among women in Veterans Affairs Healthcare System: A systematic review. Womens Health Issues. 2016;46:401–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Joulaei H, Maharlouei N, Lankarani KB, Razzaghi A, Akbari M. Narrative review of women’s health in Iran: challenges and successes. Int J Equity Health. 2016;15:25.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    UN Women. Gender Equality in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: United Nations. New York: UN Women Headquarters; 2018.

  19. 19.

    Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Rathert C, Wyrwich MD, Boren SA. Patient-centered care and outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70:351–79.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Doyle C, Lennox L, Bell D. A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open. 2012;3:e001570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Canadian Agency for Drugs & Technology in Health. Patient- and Family-Centered Care Initiatives in Acute Care Settings: A Review. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs & Technology in Health; 2015.

  23. 23.

    Scholl I, Zill JM, Härter M, et al. An integrative model of patient-centeredness - a systematic review and concept analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9:e107828.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    McCormack LA, Treiman K, Rupert D, et al. Measuring patient-centered communication in cancer care: a literature review and the development of a systematic approach. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72:1085–95.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Strobino DM, Grason H, Minkovitz C. Charting a course for the future of women's health in the United States: concepts, findings and recommendations. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:839–48.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Improving Women’s Health in Ontario. Ontario Women’s Health Framework. Toronto: Effecting Change for Women’s Health in Ontario; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62:107–15.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15:1277–88.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89:1245–51.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Estimates Briefing Book 2017–18. Ontario: MOHLTC; 2017. http://health.gov.on.ca/en/common/ministry/publications/plans/ppar17/docs/ppar17.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Manitoba Women’s Advisory Council. The Status of Women in Manitoba. Winnipeg: Government of Manitoba; 2018. https://www.gov.mb.ca/msw/pdf/status_womenin_manitoba.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Mental Health & Addictions Leadership Advisory Council. Mental Health and Addictions Realizing the Vision: Better Mental Health Means Better Health. Ontario: MOHLTC; 2017. http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/common/ministry/publications/reports/bmhmbh/mental_health_adv_council.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Nova Scotia Health Authority Mental Health and Addictions. Milestones on Our Journey: Transforming Mental Health and Addictions in Nova Scotia A Provincial Model for Promoting Positive Mental Health, Care and Support. Nova Scotia: NSHA; 2017. http://www.nshealth.ca/sites/nshealth.ca/files/milestones_on_our_journey_-_1.8mb.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Addiction and Mental Health Strategic Clinical Network. 2017–2020 Transformational Roadmap. Edmonton: AHS; 2017. https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/about/scn/ahs-scn-amh-roadmap.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. Towards Recovery: A Vision for a Renewed Mental Health and Addictions System for Newfoundland and Labrador. Newfoundland and Labrador: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador; 2017. https://www.health.gov.nl.ca/health/all_party_committe_report.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Health Intelligence and Associate. Provincial Clinical and Preventative Services Planning for Manitoba: Doing Things Differently and Better. Manitoba: Ministry of Health, Seniors, and Active Living; 2017. https://www.gov.mb.ca/health/documents/pcpsp.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Government of Prince Edward Island. Prince Edward Island 2016–2026 Mental Health and Addiction Strategy: Moving Forward Together. Prince Edward Island: Government of Prince Edward Island; 2016. https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/sites/default/files/publications/peimentalhealthaddictionsstrategy_moving_forward.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Office of the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Department of Health. Health Inequities in New Brunswick. Fredericton: New Brunswick Department of Health; 2016. https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/hs/pdf/en/Publications/HealthInequitiesNewBrunswick2016.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Health PEI. Annual Report 2016–2017. Charlottetown: Government of Prince Edward Island; 2017. http://www.assembly.pe.ca/docs/2017-18-HealthPEI-ar.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Provincial Advisory Council Addiction & Mental Health. 2015–16 Annual Report. Alberta: AHS; 2016. https://www.hqontario.ca/Portals/0/documents/about/annualreport-2015-2016-en.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Ministry of Health. Enabling Effective, Quality Population and Patient-Centred Care: A Provincial Strategy for Health Human Resources. British Columbia: Ministry of Health; 2015. https://www.health.gov.bc.ca/library/publications/year/2015/health-human-resources-policy-paper.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Ministry of Health. Primary and Community Care in BC: A Strategic Policy Framework. British Columbia: Ministry of Health; 2015. https://www.health.gov.bc.ca/library/publications/year/2015/primary-and-community-care-policy-paper.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Government of New Brunswick. Progress Report 2015: The Action Plan for Mental Health in New Brunswick 2011–2018. Fredericton: GNB; 2015. https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/hs/pdf/en/MentalHealth/ActionPlanProgressReport2015.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Routledge M. Healthy Environments Healthy People: 2015 Health Status of Manitobans Report. Winnipeg: Government of Manitoba; 2015. https://www.gov.mb.ca/health/cppho/docs/hehp.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Government of New Brunswick. New Brunswick’s Wellness Strategy 2014–2021: The heart of our future. Fredericton: GNB; 2014. https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/sd-ds/pdf/Wellness-MieuxEtre/NewBrunswickWellnessStrategy2014-2021.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Ministry of Health. Healthy Minds, Healthy People: A Ten-Year Plan to Address Mental Health and Substance Use in British Columbia. British Columbia: Ministry of Health; 2012. https://www.health.gov.bc.ca/library/publications/year/2010/healthy_minds_healthy_people.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Provincial Mental Health and Addictions Advisory Council. Activity Plan April 1, 2011-March 31, 2014. St. John’s, NL: Mental Health and Addictions Services Department of Health and Community Services; 2011. https://novascotia.ca/dhw/mental-health/reports/Mental-Health-and-Addictions-Strategy-Together-We-Can.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019.

  48. 48.

    Government of Manitoba. Manitoba Women’s Health Strategy 2011. Manitoba: Government of Manitoba; 2011. https://www.gov.mb.ca/msw/publications/pdf/2011_manitoba_womens_health.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Kettner J. Chief Provincial Public Health Officer’s Report on the Health Status of Manitobans 2010: Priorities for Prevention: Everyone, Every Place, Every Day. Winnipeg: Government of Manitoba; 2011. https://www.gov.mb.ca/health/cppho/pfp.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Canadian Chronic Disease Surveillance System. Heart Disease in Canada 2018. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada; 2018. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/documents/services/publications/diseases-conditions/report-heart-disease-canada-2018/pub1-eng.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Department of Health and Community Services. Strategic Plan 2017–20. Newfoundland and Labrador: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador; 2017. https://www.health.gov.nl.ca/health/publications/HCSStrategicPlan2017-20.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Alberta Health Services. Accreditation Report. Edmonton: Alberta Health Services; 2016. https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/about/msd/ahs-msd-ac-full-report-2016.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Alberta Health Services. A Vision for Chronic Condition and Disease Prevention and Management. Edmonton: Alberta Health Services; 2016. https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/hp/cdm/if-hp-cdm-ccdmp-strategy.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Province of New Brunswick. Health Annual Report 2016-2017. Fredericton: Province of New Brunswick; 2016. https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/h-s/pdf/en/Publications/AnnualReport_2016-2017.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Ministry of Health. Setting Priorities for the B.C. Health System. British Columbia: Ministry of Health; 2014. https://www.health.gov.bc.ca/library/publications/year/2014/Setting-priorities-BC-Health-Feb14.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Province of New Brunswick. Rebuilding Healthcare Together: The Provincial Health Plan 2013–2018. Fredericton: Province of New Brunswick; 2013. https://www.gnb.ca/0212/values/pdf/9129%20english.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Department of Health and Community Services. Improving Health Together: A Policy Framework for Chronic Disease Prevention and Management in Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s: Department of Health and Community Services; 2011. https://www.health.gov.nl.ca/health/chronicdisease/Improving_Health_Together.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Canadian Chronic Disease Surveillance System. Hypertension in Canada 2010. Public Health Agency of Canada. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada; 2010. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cd-mc/cvd-mcv/ccdss-snsmc-2010/pdf/CCDSS_HTN_Report_FINAL_EN_20100513.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Department of Health. A Chronic Disease Prevention and Management Framework for New Brunswick. New Brunswick: Department of Health; 2010. https://www.gnb.ca/0051/pub/pdf/2010/6960e-final.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Kowalczyk S, Randolph SM, Oravecz L. Community coalitions gender-aware policy and systems changes to improve the health of women and girls. Womens Health Issues. 2017;27(Suppl 1):S6–13.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Siliquini R, Piat SC, Versino E, Gianino MM, Mutu D, Cossutta M, Manzoli L. Gender health and policies: the state of the art from exposure to solutions. J Prev Med Hyg. 2009;50:58–75.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Palencia L, DeMoortel D, Artazcoz L, Salvador-Piedrafita M, Puig-Barrachine V, Hagqvist E, et al. Gender policies and gender inequalities in health in Europe: Results of the SOPHIE project. Int J Health Serv. 2017;47:61–82.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Palencia L, Malmusi D, DeMoortel D, Artazcoz L, Backhans M, Vanroelen C, et al. The influence of gender equality policies on gender inequalities in health in Europe. Soc Sci Med. 2014;117:25–33.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Williamson A, Makkar SR, Redman S. How was research engaged with and used in the development of 131 policy documents? Findings and measurement implications from a mixed methods study. Implement Sci. 2019;14:44.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Gavriilidis G, Gavriilidou NN, Pettersson E, Renhammar E, Balkfors A, Ostergren PO. Empowerment evaluation of a Swedish gender equity plan. Glob Health Action. 2014;7:23710.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Themessl-Huber M, Lazenbatt A, Taylor J. Overcoming health inequalities: A participative evaluation framework fit for the task. J R Soc Promot Heal. 2008;128:117–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Health Canada. Sex and Gender Action Plan 2017–2020. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2018. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/transparency/corporate-management-reporting/health-portfolio-sex-gender-based-analysis-action-plan.html. Accessed 21 Jan 2020

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Canadian Institutes of Health Information. How to integrate sex and gender into research. Ottawa: Canadian Institutes of Health Research; 2019. https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/50836.html. Accessed 21 Jan 2020

    Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Gagliardi AR, Dunn S, Foster A, Grace SL, Green CR, Khanlou N, Miller FA, Stewart DE, Vigod S, Wright FC. How is patient-centred care addressed in women’s health? A theoretical rapid review. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e026121.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Bryanna Nyhof, Mahrukh Zahid, Dalia Kagramanov, Jessica Ramlakhan, and Talia Filler who assisted with searching for policies, and extracting and organising data from policies.

Funding

This research was funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health & Long Term Care, which took no part in the design of the study, collection, analysis and interpretation of data, or in writing the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

ARG acquired funding, conceived and designed the work, coordinated the work including data collection, analysis and interpretation, and drafted the manuscript. SD, AMF, SLG, NK, DES and SES assisted in design of the work, interpretation of data and drafting the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. All authors agreed both to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved and the resolution documented in the literature.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna R. Gagliardi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The University Health Network Research Ethics Board reviewed and approved this study. Data (health system policies) were publicly available so informed consent was not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gagliardi, A.R., Dunn, S., Foster, A.M. et al. Is patient-centred care for women a priority for policy-makers? Content analysis of government policies. Health Res Policy Sys 18, 23 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-0533-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Patient-centred care
  • women’s health
  • government policy
  • evidence-informed policies
  • qualitative content analysis