Citizens as active participants in integrated care: Challenging the field’s dominant paradigms

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article number6
Pages (from-to)1-12
Number of pages12
JournalInternational Journal of Integrated Care
Volume19
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 14 Mar 2019

Fingerprint

Administrative Personnel
paradigm
citizen
citizens' participation
exclusion
recipient
inclusion

Keywords

  • Citizen participation
  • Co-production
  • Informal care
  • Integrated care
  • Public engagement
  • User involvement

Cite this

@article{8c3a3a9df30547ffb84f92cd59d476c9,
title = "Citizens as active participants in integrated care: Challenging the field’s dominant paradigms",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Citizen participation, Co-production, Informal care, Integrated care, Public engagement, User involvement",
author = "Ludo Glimmerveen and Henk Nies and Sierk Ybema",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
day = "14",
doi = "10.5334/ijic.4202",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "1--12",
journal = "International Journal of Integrated Care",
issn = "1568-4156",
publisher = "Igitur, Utrecht Publishing and Archiving Services",
number = "1",

}

Citizens as active participants in integrated care : Challenging the field’s dominant paradigms. / Glimmerveen, Ludo; Nies, Henk; Ybema, Sierk.

In: International Journal of Integrated Care, Vol. 19, No. 1, 6, 14.03.2019, p. 1-12.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

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

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 -