Valuing Healthcare Improvement: Implicit Norms, Explicit Normativity, and Human Agency
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.
KeywordsEthics Social values Implementation science Improvement science Knowledge translation Evidence based medicine Cancer screening Early detection of cancer Health policy Community participation
This study was funded by Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Grants 1023197 and 1104136.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.
- 3.Barley, E., Borschmann, R. D., Walters, P., & Tylee, A. (2015). Interventions to encourage uptake of cancer screening for people with severe mental illness. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009641.pub3.
- 6.Bonfill Cosp, X., Marzo Castillejo, M., Pladevall Vila, M., Marti, J., & Emparanza, J. I. (2009). Strategies for increasing the participation of women in community breast cancer screening. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002943.
- 8.Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Rx for Change Database 2016. https://www.cadth.ca/resources/rx-for-change/database/browse.
- 10.Carter, S. M. (2016). Ethical aspects of cancer screening. Cancer Forum, 40(2), 105–109.Google Scholar
- 13.Dancy, J. (2006). Nonnaturalism. In D. Copp (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of ethical theory (pp. 132–145). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 18.Flight, I. H. K., Wilson, C. L., Griffiths, L., & Myers, R. E. (2004). Interventions for improving uptake of population-based screening for colorectal cancer using fecal occult blood testing (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005035.
- 21.Gotzsche, P. C., & Jorgensen, J. K. (2013). Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub5.
- 22.Greenhalgh, T. (2014). How to read a paper: The basics of evidence-based medicine. West Sussex: BMJ Books/John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
- 27.Holme, O., Bretthauer, M., Fretheim, A., OdgaardJensen, J., & Hoff, G. (2014). Flexible sigmoidoscopy versus faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening in asymptomatic individuals. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009259.pub2.
- 28.Ilic, D., Neuberger, M. M., Djulbegovic, M., & Dahm, P. (2013). Screening for prostate cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004720.pub3.
- 29.Institute of Medicine. (2009). Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- 33.Manser, R., Lethaby, A., Irving, L. B., Stone, C., Byrnes, G., Abramson, M. J., et al. (2013). Screening for lung cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001991.pub3.
- 35.Michie, S., Richardson, M., Johnston, M., Abraham, C., Francis, J., Hardeman, W., et al. (2013). The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: Building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 46(1), 81–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 36.Moynihan, R. N., Cooke, G. P. E., Doust, J. A., Bero, L., Hill, S., & Glasziou, P. P. (2013). Expanding disease definitions in guidelines and expert panel ties to industry: A cross-sectional study of common conditions in the United States. PLoS Medicine, 10(8), e1001500.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 38.Parker, L., Rychetnik, L., & Carter, S. (2015). Values in breast cancer screening: An empirical study with Australian experts. British Medical Journal Open, 5(5), e006333.Google Scholar
- 40.Pickles, K., Carter, S. M., & Rychetnik, L. (2015). Doctors’ approaches to PSA testing and overdiagnosis in primary healthcare: A qualitative study. British Medical Journal Open, 5(3), e006367.Google Scholar
- 43.Putnam, H. (2002). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- 51.Williams, J. (2016). An empirical ethics analysis of cervical screening organisation (Ph.D. thesis). Sydney: The University of Sydney. http://hdl.handle.net/2123/15710.
- 53.Williams, J., Carter, S., & Rychetnik, L. (2017). Contested guideline development in Australia’s Cervical Screening Program: Values drive different views of the purpose and implementation of organized screening. Public Health Ethics, 10(1), 5–18.Google Scholar
- 54.Wilson, J. M. G., & Jungner, G. (1968). Principles and practice of screening for disease. Geneva: World Health Organisation.Google Scholar