Literature DB >> 29058204

Valuing Healthcare Improvement: Implicit Norms, Explicit Normativity, and Human Agency.

Stacy M Carter1.   

Abstract

I argue that greater attention to human agency and normativity in both researching and practicing service improvement may be one strategy for enhancing improvement science, illustrating with examples from cancer screening. Improvement science tends to deliberately avoid explicit normativity, for paradigmatically coherent reasons. But there are good reasons to consider including explicit normativity in thinking about improvement. Values and moral judgements are central to social life, so an adequate account of social life must include these elements. And improvement itself is unavoidably normative: it assumes that things could and should be better than they are. I seek to show that normativity will always be implicated in the creation of evidence, the design of programs, the practice of healthcare, and in citizens' judgements about that care, and to make a case that engaging with this normativity is worthwhile.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer screening; Community participation; Early detection of cancer; Ethics; Evidence based medicine; Health policy; Implementation science; Improvement science; Knowledge translation; Social values

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29058204     DOI: 10.1007/s10728-017-0350-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Care Anal        ISSN: 1065-3058


  34 in total

Review 1.  Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review.

Authors:  Justin E Bekelman; Yan Li; Cary P Gross
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003 Jan 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Valuing evidence: bias and the evidence hierarchy of evidence-based medicine.

Authors:  Kirstin Borgerson
Journal:  Perspect Biol Med       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 1.416

3.  Explaining Michigan: developing an ex post theory of a quality improvement program.

Authors:  Mary Dixon-Woods; Charles L Bosk; Emma Louise Aveling; Christine A Goeschel; Peter J Pronovost
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.911

4.  All care, but whose responsibility? Community juries reason about expert and patient responsibilities in prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Chris Degeling; Stacy M Carter; Lucie Rychetnik
Journal:  Health (London)       Date:  2016-08-03

5.  "What should happen before asymptomatic men decide whether or not to have a PSA test?" A report on three community juries.

Authors:  Chris Degeling; Lucie Rychetnik; Kristen Pickles; Rae Thomas; Jennifer A Doust; Robert A Gardiner; Paul Glasziou; Ainsley J Newson; Stacy M Carter
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2015-10-19       Impact factor: 7.738

Review 6.  The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions.

Authors:  Susan Michie; Maartje M van Stralen; Robert West
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2011-04-23       Impact factor: 7.327

7.  Doctors' perspectives on PSA testing illuminate established differences in prostate cancer screening rates between Australia and the UK: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Kristen Pickles; Stacy M Carter; Lucie Rychetnik; Vikki A Entwistle
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 8.  Screening for breast cancer with mammography.

Authors:  Peter C Gøtzsche; Karsten Juhl Jørgensen
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-06-04

Review 9.  Flexible sigmoidoscopy versus faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening in asymptomatic individuals.

Authors:  Øyvind Holme; Michael Bretthauer; Atle Fretheim; Jan Odgaard-Jensen; Geir Hoff
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-10-01

10.  Expanding disease definitions in guidelines and expert panel ties to industry: a cross-sectional study of common conditions in the United States.

Authors:  Raymond N Moynihan; Georga P E Cooke; Jenny A Doust; Lisa Bero; Suzanne Hill; Paul P Glasziou
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2013-08-13       Impact factor: 11.069

View more
  4 in total

1.  Harveian Oration 2018: Improving quality and safety in healthcare .

Authors:  Mary Dixon-Woods
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 2.659

2.  What does 'quality' add? Towards an ethics of healthcare improvement.

Authors:  Alan Cribb; Vikki Entwistle; Polly Mitchell
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2019-11-15       Impact factor: 2.903

3.  Defining What is Good: Pluralism and Healthcare Quality.

Authors:  Polly Mitchell; Alan Cribb; Vikki A Entwistle
Journal:  Kennedy Inst Ethics J       Date:  2019

4.  The ethical, legal and social implications of using artificial intelligence systems in breast cancer care.

Authors:  Stacy M Carter; Wendy Rogers; Khin Than Win; Helen Frazer; Bernadette Richards; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2019-10-11       Impact factor: 4.380

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.