TY - JOUR
T1 - Citizens as active participants in integrated care
T2 - Challenging the field’s dominant paradigms
AU - Glimmerveen, Ludo
AU - Nies, Henk
AU - Ybema, Sierk
PY - 2019/3/14
Y1 - 2019/3/14
N2 - Policy makers, practitioners and academics often claim that care users and other citizens should be ‘at the center’ of care integration pursuits. Nonetheless, the field of integrated care tends to approach these constituents as passive recipients of professional and managerial efforts. This paper critically reflects on this discrepancy, which, we contend, indicates both a key objective and an ongoing challenge of care integration; i.e., the need to reconcile (1) the professional, organizational and institutional frameworks by which care work is structured with (2) the diversity and diffuseness that is inherent to pursuits of active user and citizen participation. By identifying four organizational tensions that result from this challenge, we raise questions about whose knowledge counts (lay/professional), who is in control (local/central), who participates (inclusion/exclusion) and whose interests matter (civic/organizational). By making explicit what so often remains obscured in the literature, we enable actors to more effectively address these tensions in their pursuits of care integration. In turn, we are able to generate a more realistic outlook on the opportunities, limitations and pitfalls of citizen participation.
AB - Policy makers, practitioners and academics often claim that care users and other citizens should be ‘at the center’ of care integration pursuits. Nonetheless, the field of integrated care tends to approach these constituents as passive recipients of professional and managerial efforts. This paper critically reflects on this discrepancy, which, we contend, indicates both a key objective and an ongoing challenge of care integration; i.e., the need to reconcile (1) the professional, organizational and institutional frameworks by which care work is structured with (2) the diversity and diffuseness that is inherent to pursuits of active user and citizen participation. By identifying four organizational tensions that result from this challenge, we raise questions about whose knowledge counts (lay/professional), who is in control (local/central), who participates (inclusion/exclusion) and whose interests matter (civic/organizational). By making explicit what so often remains obscured in the literature, we enable actors to more effectively address these tensions in their pursuits of care integration. In turn, we are able to generate a more realistic outlook on the opportunities, limitations and pitfalls of citizen participation.
KW - Citizen participation
KW - Co-production
KW - Informal care
KW - Integrated care
KW - Public engagement
KW - User involvement
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064466719&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85064466719&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.5334/ijic.4202
DO - 10.5334/ijic.4202
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85064466719
VL - 19
SP - 1
EP - 12
JO - International Journal of Integrated Care
JF - International Journal of Integrated Care
SN - 1568-4156
IS - 1
M1 - 6
ER -