The Longevity Medicine Patient Experience Framework: A Seven-Domain Model for Optimizing Person-Centered Longevity Medicine

Abstract

This article introduces the longevity medicine patient experience framework (LMPEF), a seven-domain model for optimizing patient experience in longevity medicine. Each domain, from fostering personalized patient–provider partnerships to cultivating an optimal care environment, contributes to a comprehensive system designed to enhance patient experience, support sustained behavior change, and achieve meaningful health outcomes. The framework highlights the crucial role of interdisciplinary teams in delivering comprehensive care. Addressing the complexities of an aging global population necessitates collaborative efforts among healthcare professionals. The LMPEF promotes tailored interventions designed to address diverse patient needs while fostering resilience and independence. By operationalizing a patient-experienced, person-centered approach, this framework offers potential solutions to common challenges in longevity medicine, including care fragmentation, accessibility barriers, and poor patient engagement. It positions a high quality patient experience to be achieved through the multidisciplinary team skillfully enabling the patient to identify and enact the goals that will extending both their healthspan and lifespan.

Keywords

patient experience patient/relationship-centered care relationships in healthcare patient satisfaction

Introduction

The core philosophy of the longevity medicine (LM) patient experience framework (LMPEF) emphasizes a holistic, proactive, and empowering approach to patient care, focusing on immediate, intermediate, and long-term health optimization and well-being. It recognizes that LM requires a strong patient–provider partnership, continuous support, and personalized strategies to ensure an optimal patient experience.

Over the past decade, there has been a significant shift in the field of aging research. Geroscience, an emerging discipline, focuses on elucidating the underlying biological processes of aging and their role in the development of age-associated diseases.¹ This field operates on the premise that aging is the primary risk factor for multiple age-related conditions, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and neurodegenerative disorders. By targeting the root causes of aging, LM aims not only to extend lifespan but, more importantly, to enhance healthspan, the period of life spent in good health and functional independence.²

The current healthcare landscape urgently requires innovative, comprehensive approaches to LM, also termed geromedicine, particularly as the global population ages and the prevalence of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) continues to rise despite existing efforts.^3,4 Effective management of age-related conditions and the promotion of healthy aging have become increasingly crucial. Traditional care models, predominantly reactive, often fail to address the multifaceted needs of aging individuals and their experience of care, highlighting the need for a paradigm shift towards proactive, person-centered strategies that prioritize individual experiences, values, and outcomes.

While the term “longevity” can suggest that the patient population is the elderly, this is not the case. Instead, the focus of LM clinics is “life centric”: the adoption of lifestyle practices and behaviors that optimize healthy aging throughout adulthood. Existing-patient experience frameworks and associated measurement criteria provide valuable general principles used to guide the development of the LMPEF, more work was needed to develop a framework and measure criteria specific for Healthy Longevity Medicine clinics. The unique combination of highly personalized strategies inherent in LM calls for a more specialized approach to the assessment and evaluation of a patient's experience. As LM gains increasing prominence and new longevity and precision medicine clinics emerge to meet growing public and medical interest, it is essential to propose scientifically grounded, robust frameworks that can guide these clinics in standardizing high-quality, person-centric care. In this article, the term longevity clinic refers to a preventive, geroscience-informed practice, often outpatient that integrates advanced diagnostics, risk stratification, and personalized lifestyle and therapeutic interventions to optimize healthspan. The LMPEF is intended for adult patients engaged in proactive health optimization across the life course, rather than only those of advanced in chronological age.

The principles of person-centered care, rooted in Carl Rogers’ client-centered therapy, emphasize empathy and nonjudgmental support.^5,6 These principles are fundamental to delivering a superior patient experience, as highlighted by international organizations such as the Beryl and Picker Institutes, which advocate research and best practice in patient experience.^7–10

The concept of patient experience has evolved from early holistic approaches to a modern “human experience” perspective acknowledging the shared journey of illness among patients, providers, family, and community. Recognizing the critical role that taking time to understand and respond to a patient's experience has on treatment efficacy, adherence, and overall well-being has led to increased interest in tailored health strategies.^11,12 There is growing acknowledgement of the limitations of traditional models that do not fully integrate patients’ values, preferences, cultural backgrounds, and personal goals. This shift is also evident in recent patient-centered care guidelines issued by major health organizations.^13–15 A strong emphasis on person-centered care is associated with enhanced health outcomes, improved patient experience, and potentially reduced healthcare expenditures, and evidence confirms that positive patient experiences correlate with better clinical outcomes and safety measures.^16–18

To address the pressing need for an approach that systematically enhances the patient experience within LM, we propose the LMPEF, a comprehensive seven-domain model (Figure 1). This framework is, to our knowledge, the first designed explicitly to structure and optimize the patient-experience within the context of LM, integrating core principles of geroscience with a deeply person-centered approach to care. It is founded on the principle that optimizing longevity involves not merely extending lifespan but crucially enhancing healthspan and quality of life, with the patient's experience of their care journey being paramount. This is achieved through a focus on integrated care, patient empowerment, and interdisciplinary collaboration. While medical advancements have increased lifespan, often through reactive interventions, a significant gap between lifespan and healthspan persists.¹⁹ This underscores the need for a holistic, proactive, patient-experience-focused, person-centered approach to LM.

Figure 1.

Provides a Visual Overview of the 7 Longevity Medicine Patient Experience Framework (LMPEF) Domains and Their Interrelationships.

Method

The LMPEF was developed through an iterative, evidence-informed process. First, to identify foundational principles and domains relevant to longevity medicine, we reviewed existing patient experience models and person-centered care frameworks, including guidance from the Picker and Beryl Institutes^9,10 and the NHS England Experience of Care Improvement Framework. We then analyzed through Subject Matter Expert (SME) discussions the specific needs and challenges of LM, such as the emphasis on preventive healthspan extension, integration of advanced diagnostics and multidisciplinary interventions, and long-term patient engagement. From this analysis, 7 key domains emerged, each representing a crucial aspect of the patient experience in LM. These domains and their constituent elements were refined by consensus among the authors to ensure that the framework is comprehensive, context-specific, and aligned with established person-centered care principles. In defining each domain, we incorporated insights from the literature and best practices to ensure that the LMPEF addresses both general patient-experience factors and the unique considerations of LM.

Results

The LMPEF consists of 7 interrelated domains, each encompassing specific elements designed to optimize the patient experience in LM.

Domain 1—Personalized Patient–Provider Partnership

This foundational domain emphasizes cultivating a robust, trusting relationship between the patient and provider, built on effective communication, mutual respect, and shared decision-making. In LM, where long-term adherence and patient empowerment are essential, this partnership is central to the success of any programme of care. The effectiveness of this partnership is assessed using the 5 elements below that measure the hinges the ability of the healthcare team to understand and respond to the unique needs and values of each patient, making them feel heard, respected, and valued.

Elements

Trust and rapport—building a strong, trusting relationship through active listening, empathy, and transparency so that patients feel safe and willing to engage.

Whole-person care—explicitly addressing physical, mental, emotional, and social well-being, including lifestyle, relationships, support, and psychological needs, thereby fostering a sense of comprehensive care.

Respectful communication—using clear, understandable, and respectful dialogue that acknowledges individual values and supports active participation in decisions.

Shared decision-making—collaborating with patients to set goals and design treatment plans that align with their preferences and values, enhancing their sense of control and adherence.

Ongoing goal alignment—revisiting and recalibrating goals in light of changes in patient motivation, life stage, or new data inputs, recognizing that goals evolve over time.

Key performance indicators for this domain include patient-reported satisfaction with communication and relationships, provider assessments of communication quality, qualitative feedback from patient–provider interactions, and measures of shared decision-making quality.

Domain 2—Accessible and Seamless Service Delivery

A positive patient experience depends on easy access to services and seamless navigation across episodes of care. Decades of public health and patient experience research have shown that the ease with which a person first connects with a healthcare provider, and then navigates subsequent interactions, strongly influences their level of engagement.²⁰ This domain therefore includes 5 elements that assess how well the healthcare team promote a welcoming, supportive experience for patients and their families.

Elements

First-Contact Accessibility—ensuring that initial consultations and information are easy to access (eg, clear website information, direct phone lines, and telehealth options), thereby reducing delays, confusion, and early drop-off.

Efficient Scheduling—providing streamlined appointment booking and reasonable wait times, which are key drivers of satisfaction and sustained engagement.

Program Structure and Flexibility—tailoring programme lengths, intensity, and delivery modalities to fit individual needs and lifestyles, demonstrating that the patient's personal circumstances are considered and respected.

Care Coordination—ensuring seamless transitions between services and providers, with a clearly identified team member (eg, LM physician, nurse, or care coordinator) accountable for communication, referrals, and follow-up so that patients are not left to navigate complex systems alone.

Timely Information—providing rapid access to test results, treatment plans, and educational materials, empowering patients to act promptly and reducing uncertainty.

Outcome measures for this domain include appointment wait times, patient satisfaction scores related to access and scheduling, measures of ease of navigation and perceived care coordination, and programme adherence/completion rates.¹³

Domain 3—Comprehensive and Integrated Care

This domain is comprised of 6 elements that emphasizes a holistic, integrated care model that addresses all aspects of a patient's health so they receive comprehensive services for optimal wellbeing.

Elements

Holistic Assessment—conducting thorough evaluations of lifestyle, biomarkers, and (where appropriate) genetic factors to identify individualized risk and need profiles, helping patients feel that their unique situation is understood.

Personalized Treatment Plans—developing interventions that are specifically tailored to each patient's goals and risks, reinforcing that their care is personally relevant.

Integration of Services—coordinating services such as nutrition counselling, fitness training, stress management, and sleep optimization so they function as a cohesive programme rather than isolated offerings.

Feedback Continuity—ensuring that test results, patient concerns, and updates flow reliably across the care team without requiring patients to close the loop themselves, thereby reducing burden and anxiety.

Health Promotion and Education—providing patients with the knowledge and tools necessary to make informed lifestyle choices, particularly in a context of abundant and sometimes conflicting health information.

Narrative Coherence—helping patients see how services and data points fit into their health story over time, which improves understanding, satisfaction, and motivation.

Patient experience assessments in this domain should include satisfaction with the comprehensiveness and coordination of services, programme adherence, perceived health improvements, and patient reports of holistic wellbeing and integrated care.

Domain 4—Empowered Patient Activation and Self-Management

This domain focuses on empowering patients to take an active role in their health journey by providing the psychological support needed to acknowledge, accept, and actively address recommended lifestyle changes. The 5 elements included in this domain are used to assess how successful the team has been/is in equipping patients with the skills, knowledge, and ongoing encouragement required for self-management, leading to a more positive and engaged patient experience. This includes recognizing that changes in mental health, cognition, and emotional regulation particularly in later life can influence how patients understand information, make decisions, and adhere to care plans.

Elements

Confidence Building—fostering patient confidence in their ability to make and sustain lifestyle changes, for example, by highlighting incremental progress and normalizing setbacks as part of the change process.

Barrier Identification and Resolution—proactively identifying practical, psychological, and social barriers (such as limited time, competing caregiving responsibilities, financial constraints, mobility difficulties, or fear of failure) and co-creating realistic solutions (eg, simplified routines, home-based options, or involving family support).

Skill Development—equipping patients with concrete skills for self-monitoring, behavior modification, and stress management so that desired changes become actionable.

Ongoing Support—providing continuous support and encouragement through coaching, follow-up appointments, group programmes, and digital resources, ensuring that patients feel supported throughout their journey rather than left to implement changes alone.

Confidence and Skills Aligned With Values—aligning skills and goals with what matters most to the patient (eg, independence, caregiving roles, and meaningful activities), which makes the changes more personally resonant and sustainable.

Evaluation of this domain can include validated activation measures, self-efficacy scores, adherence to recommended behaviors, engagement with self-monitoring, and patient-reported confidence in managing health.

Domain 5—Meaningful Health Outcomes and Sustained Behavior Change

This domain encapsulates the central aim of LMPEF: achieving meaningful, patient relevant health outcomes together with sustained, positive behavior change. The 4 elements utilize the evidence-based methods of assessing the patient's subjective experience of this primary goal of LM clinics.

Elements

Patient-Reported Outcomes—assessing how care affects quality of life, symptoms, function, and overall well-being from the patient's perspective using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs).

Objective Health Improvements—monitoring changes in biomarkers, physiological parameters, and disease risk factors to capture biological impact.

Long-Term Behavior Changes—tracking sustained improvements in nutrition, physical activity, sleep, exposure to toxic substances, and stress management beyond the initial intervention period.

Emotional Resonance—supporting patients to feel emotionally connected to their care journey, so that changes in health status are perceived as meaningful and aligned with their life goals.

Measurement across these elements combines validated PROMs and Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) with biometric data and lifestyle tracking, complemented by qualitative assessments of engagement and emotional investment.

Domain 6—Effective Patient Knowledge and Education

Whereas Domain 4 focuses on patients’ confidence and capacity to act, the 5 elements assess the quality and delivery of information that underpins those actions. Clear, accessible, evidence based education allows patients to make informed health decisions, reduces anxiety, and strengthens their overall experience of care.

Elements

Clarity of Information—providing clear, concise, and understandable explanations of LM principles and interventions to prevent overwhelm and support informed involvement.

Evidence-Based Education—ensuring that educational content is grounded in current scientific evidence and, where relevant, communicates degrees of uncertainty.

Skill-Based Learning—teaching patients how to implement recommended changes through practical demonstrations and guided practice (eg, reading labels, planning meals, or pacing physical activity).

Resource Availability—offering access to curated, reliable resources such as educational materials, online platforms, and peer or group support, which patients can revisit outside of consultations.

Multiformat Learning—providing diverse content formats (eg, video, group sessions, digital coaching, and print materials) tailored to different preferences, learning styles, and cognitive needs.

Evaluation of the educational experience involves assessing patient knowledge, satisfaction with clarity and relevance of materials, and utilization and perceived value of educational resources.

Domain 7—Environment of Care and Hospitality

Decades of work in quality, patient safety, and patient experience have shown that environmental factors such as layout, light, sound, and smell can significantly influence healing and how patients perceive their care. The physical and emotional environment should promote relaxation, well-being, and comfort, contributing to a sense of safety and welcome.

Elements

Comfortable and Welcoming Atmosphere—creating a safe, clean, aesthetically pleasing environment that reduces anxiety and invites engagement.

Emotional Support—providing a supportive, nonjudgmental atmosphere where patients feel safe to express concerns and emotions.

Attention to Detail—thoughtfully designing each touchpoint of the patient journey, from waiting areas to consultation rooms, recognizing that “small” details can significantly shape overall impressions of care.

Digital Hospitality—extending warmth, accessibility, and clear communication into digital and remote interactions, recognizing that virtual encounters are now integral to the care environment.

Improvements in this domain can be measured using patient feedback on the physical and emotional environment, staff reflections on interactions and atmosphere, and evaluations of digital interface usability, accessibility, and perceived interpersonal connection in remote interactions.

Discussion

The LMPEF described here systematically integrates and operationalizes patient-experience principles explicitly tailored for healthcare delivery within the evolving field of LM. While general patient-experience frameworks, such as those advocated by the Beryl and Picker Institutes, and models for chronic disease management or traditional geriatric care offer foundational insights, LMPEF distinguishes itself by addressing the unique requirements of LM.^7,9,10 These include a focus on proactive healthspan extension rather than solely disease treatment, the integration of complex biomarker data and longevity-informed interventions, and the necessity for sustained, often intensive, patient engagement in lifestyle modifications and long-term monitoring.

Additionally, LMPEF addresses common shortcomings in traditional care paradigms—including fragmented care, inadequate patient access and engagement, and insufficient personalization—by providing a coordinated, person-centered approach.^9,15 The domain of accessible and seamless service delivery, in particular, directly confronts barriers frequently cited in the literature, notably access, navigation complexity, and care continuity issues, by translating established recommendations into operational standards.

Previous literature consistently highlights the necessity of person-centered approaches in medicine, emphasizing robust patient-provider relationships and active patient participation as critical for sustained behavioral change and improved health outcomes.^7,16,18,21 LMPEF operationalizes these principles through its emphasis on personalized patient–provider partnerships, effective communication, and empowerment domains that foster activation, self-management, and tailored education.^9,12

By consolidating validated principles into a structure built for LM's specific demands, LMPEF moves beyond the reactive or disease-specific focus of many existing models to support a proactive, lifelong journey of health optimization. It is designed to guide experiences of care that target biological mechanisms of aging while keeping patient-reported experience at the center. The environment-of-care domain further recognizes that emotional safety, perceived hospitality, and digital experiences meaningfully influence engagement and adherence.

Implementation challenges are inevitable. The shifts in clinical practice, interprofessional collaboration, and organizational restructuring required to adopt LMPEF may pose practical and logistical barriers.^14,17 Healthcare providers will need clear strategies to address associated financial implications, training needs, and the digital infrastructure necessary to sustain personalized, relationship-centered care and psychological support, particularly for older adults with complex cognitive or emotional needs.¹²

Since LMPEF is currently conceptual, its practical utility should be evaluated through pilots in longevity clinics or proactive health practices. Such pilots can assess the feasibility of implementing the 7 domains, explore how they interact in real-world workflows, and generate initial data on patient outcomes and experiences. Rigorous testing and long-term studies are needed to evaluate real-world effectiveness. Subsequent research should further validate the framework, develop specific measurement tools, and compare LMPEF-guided care with established geriatric or chronic-care models.

Conclusion

The LMPEF's 7 domains provide a structured approach for healthcare providers and organizations to deliver a holistic, proactive, and empowering patient experience in LM, with long-term health and well-being and the patient's lived experience of care at the core. The integration of PROMs and PREMs alongside objective health markers is essential for a comprehensive assessment of impact on patients’ lives and perceptions of care. Successful implementation will require organizational commitment to continuous quality improvement, ongoing evaluation, and adherence to patient-centered principles. By using LMPEF, LM programmes can look beyond clinical results alone, aiming to enhance the entire care journey, with success reflected in both measurable health outcomes and the richness of patients’ qualitative experiences.

Footnotes

Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Ethical Considerations

Not applicable.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Thiago Guimaraes Osório

Suzanne Robertson-Malt

References

Kennedy

Berger

Brunet

, et al. Geroscience: linking aging to chronic disease. Cell. 2014;159(4):709–713. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2014.10.039

Lyu

Wilczok

, et al. Longevity biotechnology: bridging AI, biomarkers, geroscience and clinical applications for healthy longevity. Aging (Albany NY). 2024;16(20):12955-12976. Published online October 16, 2024.doi:10.18632/aging.206135

Tsao

Aday

Almarzooq

, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics - 2023 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2023;147(8):e93–e621. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001123

Abbafati

Abbas

Abbasi-Kangevari

, et al. Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019. The Lancet. 2020;396(10258):1223–1249. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30752-2

Rogers

. Significant aspects of client-centered therapy. Am Psychol. 1946;1(10). doi:10.1037/h0060866

Hill

Nakayama

. Client-centered therapy: where has it been and where is it going? A comment on Hathaway (1948). J Clin Psychol. 2000;56(7). doi:10.1002/1097-4679(200007)56:7<861::aid-jclp5>3.0.co;2-j

Derksen

Bensing

Lagro-Janssen

. Effectiveness of empathy in general practice: a systematic review. Br J General Pract. 2013;63(606):e76–e84. doi:10.3399/bjgp13X660814

Keshtkar

Madigan

Ward

, et al. The effect of practitioner empathy on patient satisfaction. Ann Intern Med. 2024;177(2):196–209. doi:10.7326/m23-2168

Picker Institute. Picker Institute’s Eight Principles of Person-Centered Care. https://nexusipe.org/informing/resource-center/picker-institute’s-eight-principles-person-centered-care.

10.

The Beryl Institute. Defining Patient and Human Experience. https://theberylinstitute.org/defining-patient-experience/.

11.

Švab

Cerovečki

. Person-centred care, a core concept of family medicine. Eur. J. Gen. Pract. 2024;30(1). doi:10.1080/13814788.2024.2393860

12.

NHS England. Experience of care improvement framework. https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/experience-of-care-improvement-framework/.

13.

Khatib

Lee

Marques-Sule

, et al. Evaluating the extent of patient-centred care in a selection of ESC guidelines. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2020;6(1):55–61. doi:10.1093/ehjqcco/qcz025

14.

Birtcher

Allen

Anderson

, et al. 2022 ACC Expert consensus decision pathway for integrating atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and multimorbidity treatment: a framework for pragmatic, patient-centered care. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023;81(3):292–317. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2022.08.754

15.

Goldfarb

Saylor

Bozkurt

, et al. Patient-centered adult cardiovascular care: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2024;149(20):e1176–e1188. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001233

16.

Xian

Jing

, et al. More patient-centered care, better healthcare: the association between patient-centered care and healthcare outcomes in inpatients. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1148277.doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1148277

17.

Miles

Asbridge

Caballero

. Towards a person-centered medical education: challenges and imperatives (I). Educacion Medica. 2015;16(1):25–33. doi:10.1016/j.edumed.2015.05.001

18.

Doyle

Lennox

Bell

. A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open. 2013;3(1):e001570. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001570

19.

Garmany

Terzic

. Global healthspan-lifespan gaps among 183 world health organization member states. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(12):e2450241. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.50241

20.

Cabañero-Garcia

Martinez-Lacoba

Pardo-Garcia

Amo-Saus

. Barriers to health, social and long-term care access among older adults: a systematic review of reviews. Int J Equity Health. 2025;24(1):72. doi:10.1186/s12939-025-02429-y

21.

Jawad

. Patient-centered communication: basic skills. Am Fam Physician. 2017;95(1):29–34.