Healthcare choice: Discourses, perceptions, experiences and practices

Policy discourse shaped by neoliberal ideology, with its emphasis on marketisation and competition, has highlighted the importance of choice in the context of healthcare and health systems globally. Yet, evidence about how so-called consumers perceive and experience healthcare choice is in short supply and limited to specific healthcare systems, primarily in the Global North. This special issue aims to explore how choice is perceived and utilised in the context of different systems of healthcare throughout the world, where choice, at least in policy and organisational terms, has been embedded for some time. The articles are divided into those emphasising: embodiment and the meaning of choice; social processes associated with choice; the uncertainties, risks and trust involved in making choices; and issues of access and inequality associated with enacting choice. These sociological studies reveal complexities not always captured in policy discourse and suggest that the commodification of healthcare is particularly problematic

Who needs what from a national health research system: Lessons from reforms to the English Department of Health's R&D system

This article has been made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund.Health research systems consist of diverse groups who have some role in health research, but the boundaries around such a system are not clear-cut. To explore what various stakeholders need we reviewed the literature including that on the history of English health R&D reforms, and we also applied some relevant conceptual frameworks. We first describe the needs and capabilities of the main groups of stakeholders in health research systems, and explain key features of policymaking systems within which these stakeholders operate in the UK. The five groups are policymakers (and health care managers), health professionals, patients and the general public, industry, and researchers. As individuals and as organisations they have a range of needs from the health research system, but should also develop specific capabilities in order to contribute effectively to the system and benefit from it. Second, we discuss key phases of reform in the development of the English health research system over four decades - especially that of the English Department of Health's R&D system - and identify how far legitimate demands of key stakeholder interests were addressed. Third, in drawing lessons we highlight points emerging from contemporary reports, but also attempt to identify issues through application of relevant conceptual frameworks. The main lessons are: the importance of comprehensively addressing the diverse needs of various interacting institutions and stakeholders; the desirability of developing facilitating mechanisms at interfaces between the health research system and its various stakeholders; and the importance of additional money in being able to expand the scope of the health research system whilst maintaining support for basic science. We conclude that the latest health R&D strategy in England builds on recent progress and tackles acknowledged weaknesses. The strategy goes a considerable way to identifying and more effectively meeting the needs of key groups such as medical academics, patients and industry, and has been remarkably successful in increasing the funding for health research. There are still areas that might benefit from further recognition and resourcing, but the lessons identified, and progress made by the reforms are relevant for the design and coordination of national health research systems beyond England.This article is available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund

Local participation in health and social services planning The limits to local empowerment in a case study of new particpatory structures in Medway-Swale

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC:DXN002764 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

Citizens’ participation in primary health care planning: innovative citizenship practice in empirical perspective

The British National Health Service has been the focus of sustained political rhetoric in favour of greater public and patient involvement in decision making. The creation of Primary Care Groups--organizations based on local groups of general practitioners--has thus been accompanied by a requirement that they involve users and the public. This article reports on a study of Primary Care Groups (n = 167) to address two questions. First, how have the groups responded to this requirement? Second, can user and public involvement activities be related to broader changes with regard to the roles and expectations of citizens? The study indicated significant activity around public and patient involvement but also a tendency among informants to rationalize these activities in terms of a professional commitment to quality and responsiveness (rather than in relation to the expressed preferences of local citizens). In terms of the second question the results provide some, contestable, evidence of realignments in the values, priorities and assertiveness of individuals and communities of interest with regard to the state. The impact of such phenomena is, though, highly dependent upon how managers and clinicians in Primary Care Groups choose to prioritize the views of local service users and residents in relation to professional judgement, operational requisites, planning constraints and limited resources

Community involvement in hospital governance in Britain: evidence from before the National Health Service.

An important goal of policy in the British National Health Service (NHS) is to increase public involvement in health care governance. In the hospital sector this led in 2003 to the establishment of foundation trusts with "membership communities," which aim to give local citizens a say in management. This is not the first attempt to introduce greater community participation in the running of British hospitals. Prior to the inception of the NHS in 1948, the hospital contributory scheme movement provided ordinary members of the public with the opportunity to sit on hospital management boards. The article examines the nature and extent of this earlier experiment with local democracy in hospital governance. It argues that historical precedent is not particularly encouraging, either for the prospect of broadening popular participation or for making services more responsive to local needs. Although today's context is very different, the tendency for managerial and professional interests to dominate the policy arena is a feature of both periods