Search

In this paper we direct attention to unavoidable conflicts between disparate value systems co-existing within organizations. Drawing on John Law's concept of ordering and Boltanski and Thévenot's orders of worth , we understand incompatibilities inherent in implementation and governance as competing orders. In extracting and articulating competing orders from our abductive analysis of semi-structured interviews with primary care managers (n = 32) in a Swedish county council, we hope to enable actors to utilise and address them as they engage in implementation work. The potential of such an approach is exemplified by analysing a regional case of health promotion implementation pursued in 2019, in a Swedish county council. Early approaches to implementation and governance have entailed linear models emphasizing program fidelity. Critics have broadened this view by calling for optimization of multiple values and more room for professional judgment. We seek to add to this development by attending to how healthcare practices often entail different and at times conflicting configurations of patients, professionals and priorities. The county council in our case study attempted to steer primary care providers towards health promotion work. To capture the realities of the organization that primary care managers described, we propose that three competing orders can be discerned in primary care: the order of immediate care, focusing on professional judgments of the most pressing needs of patients; the order of accessible care, in which patients themselves define what needs should be cared for; and the order of future health emphasizing prevention of health in the future population. Each order enacts a specific prioritization between patients and a vision of what is or should be primary in primary care. Organizing implementation, we suggest, requires a balancing of orders of worth. • Disparate orders of worth co-exist in health care organizations. • Orders impact the ordering work i.e., what is being done, when, why and for whom. • Careful investigation of competing orders of worth is crucial in health care. • Implementation efforts should consider conflicting orders of worth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Our paper explores how legal status stratification shapes the health and health care of low-income patients with chronic illnesses in the U.S. healthcare safety net. Drawing on data from over two years of ethnographic fieldwork at urban safety-net clinics, we examine efforts by Complex Care Management (CCM) teams to stabilize patients with uncontrolled chronic illnesses through primary care-integrated support. We show that stratified citizenship and geographic variability correspond to different possibilities for health care. We suggest an approach to immigration as a structural determinant of health that accounts for the complex, stratified, and changing nature of citizenship status. We also highlight how geographical differences and interactions among local, state, and federal policies support the notion that citizenship is stratified across multiple tiers with distinctive possibilities and constraints for health. While county-based health plans at each of the study sites include residents with varying legal status, lack of formal legal status remains a substantial obstacle to care. Many immigrants are unable to take full advantage of primary and specialty care, resulting in unnecessary morbidity and mortality. In some cases, patients have returned to their country of origin to die. While CCM teams provide an impressive level of support to assist immigrant patients in navigating healthcare and immigration bureaucracies, legal and geographic stratification limit their ability to address broader aspects of these patients' social context. Highlights • Immigration status shapes the health of chronically ill U.S. safety net patients. • Local, state, and federal policies differentially stratify legal status and health. • Ethnography illustrates health impacts of stratified legal status. • Complex care management patients lacking legal status face obstacles to care. • Legal and geographic stratification impede immigrant CCM patients' health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Globally, it is recognised that the fundamental causes of iniquitous health outcomes lie within unequal distributions of wealth and power. Internationally, however, policies and interventions persist in individualising the inequalities problem and targeting individual behaviours as the main solution. This approach has been argued to represent 'Fantasy Paradigms'. This paper explores one example of such 'Fantasy' intervention from the perspective of health practitioners. Further, it explores opportunities for deepening practitioner understandings of the socio-political determination of health. Data were collected through in-depth interviews with 47 professionals involved in delivering a social prescribing programme in poor areas of Glasgow, Scotland. Data were analysed thematically across and within transcripts. Narratives highlighted different explanatory types concerning how the intervention could tackle health inequalities including: firm commitment to individualised approaches; hopeful pessimism; the social-determinants-of-health as an unpoliticised and nondeterministic backdrop to poor health; and finally, incomplete understanding of the social gradient as a population concept. Disrupted narratives of the social determination of health were also evident. This paper contributes new insights to existing debates on health inequalities discourse. These are conceptually important and identify opportunities for sharpening practitioner understanding of the social determinants of health which could in turn contribute to better, non-stigmatising primary care. It argues that re-engaging communities of practice with what is meant by determination of health is necessary and that there is a need to de-couple the policy aim of reducing health inequalities from the delivery of structurally competent and equality-focused public services. • Why are individually-focused interventions thought to reduce health inequalities? • From our data, we identify believers, 'hopeful pessimists', and dissonant discourses. • Lifestyle-oriented understandings of health problems and their solutions prevail. • Important opportunities for deliberative dialogue and agenda-setting are identified. • Decoupling health inequalities policy from health mitigation of poverty is advocated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the political embeddedness of public-sector primary care in urban India. The low quality of urban healthcare in many low- and middle-income countries is well documented. But there is relatively little analysis showing how the politics of urban healthcare delivery contribute to quality shortfalls. This study integrates urban and political theory and draws on ethnographic fieldwork in municipal government-run primary care clinics in Pune, India. I conceptualize Pune's municipal doctors as street-level bureaucrats: frontline state agents charged with delivering public services, who regularly confront conflicts between their mandate and its realization in practice. I observe how the municipal doctors experience and respond to these conflicts; delineate the historical design of the municipal institutions in which they operate; and interview doctors, nurses, nonclinical staff, administrators, and elected officials, who collectively shape primary care delivery in municipal clinics. My findings show how the doctors' work is characterized by routine departures from public service ideals. The departures stem from local electoral politics (politicians' patronage and clientelistic relations with municipal employees and patients) and weak administrative capacity (misuse and incompetent planning of public resources). The doctors are compelled to follow extra-policy directives, meaning instructions that have little to do with healthcare goals and that emphasize the political utility rather than medical purpose of their work. In response, the doctors circumscribe their clinical practice. They aim, as one doctor put it, only to "ensure the ordinary," or to sustain a deficient status quo. In these conditions, improving quality of care requires not just behavioral interventions targeted at doctors. It requires normative, social, and organizational shifts in public service planning and delivery so that doctors are positioned – materially and affectively – to meet urban healthcare challenges in low-resource contexts. • Urban politics and corruption can contribute to low quality of public healthcare. • Doctors in municipal primary care clinics in India confront politics in everyday work. • Ethnography can show how doctors experience and respond to political directives. • Doctors receive directives to accommodate patronage, clientelism, and mismanagement. • Regularly facing deficits in public integrity, doctors sustain low-quality care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]