Advertisement

Health Care Analysis

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 189–205 | Cite as

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

  • Stacy M. Carter
Original Article

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.

Keywords

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

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Abraham, C., & Michie, S. (2008). A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in interventions. Health Psychology, 27(3), 379–387.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allen, D., & Harkins, K. J. (2005). Too much guidance? The Lancet, 365(9473), 1768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.
  4. 4.
    Bekelman, J. E., Li, Y., & Gross, C. P. (2003). Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review. JAMA, 289(4), 454–465.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blakely, J. (2013). The forgotten Alasdair MacIntyre: Beyond value neutrality in the social sciences. Polity, 45(3), 445–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.
  7. 7.
    Borgerson, K. (2009). Valuing evidence: Bias and the evidence hierarchy of evidence-based medicine. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 52(2), 218–233.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Rx for Change Database 2016. https://www.cadth.ca/resources/rx-for-change/database/browse.
  9. 9.
    Cane, J., O’Connor, D., & Michie, S. (2012). Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implementation Science, 7(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carter, S. M. (2016). Ethical aspects of cancer screening. Cancer Forum, 40(2), 105–109.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carter, S. M., Williams, J., Parker, L., Pickles, K., Jacklyn, G., Rychetnik, L., et al. (2015). Screening for cervical, prostate, and breast cancer. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 49(2), 274–285.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carter, S. M., Degeling, C., Doust, J., & Barratt, A. (2016). A definition and ethical evaluation of overdiagnosis. Journal of Medical Ethics, 42(11), 705–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 14.
    Degeling, C., Carter, S. M., & Rychetnik, L. (2015). Which public and why deliberate?—A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research. Social Science and Medicine, 131, 114–121.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Degeling, C., Rychetnik, L., Pickles, K., Thomas, R., Doust, J. A., Gardiner, R. A., et al. (2015). “What should happen before asymptomatic men decide whether or not to have a PSA test?” A report on three community juries. Medical Journal of Australia, 203(8), 335.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Degeling, C., Carter, S. M., & Rychetnik, L. (2016). All care, but whose responsibility? Community juries reason about expert and patient responsibilities in prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer. Health, 20(5), 465–484.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dixon-Woods, M., Bosk, C. L., Aveling, E. L., Goeschel, C. A., & Pronovost, P. J. (2011). Explaining Michigan: Developing an ex post theory of a quality improvement program. Milbank Quarterly, 89(2), 167–205.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.
  19. 19.
    Gewirtz, S., & Cribb, A. (2006). What to do about values in social research: The case for ethical reflexivity in the sociology of education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27, 141–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gewirtz, S., & Cribb, A. (2008). Differing to agree: A reply to Hammersley and Abraham. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(5), 559–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. 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
  23. 23.
    Greenhalgh, T., Howick, J., & Maskrey, N. (2014). Evidence based medicine: A movement in crisis? BMJ, 348, g3725.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Greenhalgh, T., Snow, R., Ryan, S., Rees, S., & Salisbury, H. (2015). Six ‘biases’ against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Grimshaw, J. M., Eccles, M. P., Lavis, J. N., Hill, S. J., & Squires, J. E. (2012). Knowledge translation of research findings. Implementation Science, 7(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hedgecoe, A. M. (2004). Critical bioethics: Beyond the social science critique of applied ethics. Bioethics, 18(2), 120–143.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 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. 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. 29.
    Institute of Medicine. (2009). Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2016). Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked: A report to David Sackett. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 73(May), 82–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ioannidis, J. P., Fanelli, D., Dunne, D. D., & Goodman, S. N. (2015). Meta-research: Evaluation and improvement of research methods and practices. PLoS Biology, 13(10), e1002264.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Korsgaard, C. M. (1996). The sources of normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.
  34. 34.
    Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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. 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
  37. 37.
    Neuman, J., Korenstein, D., Ross, J. S., & Keyhani, S. (2011). Prevalence of financial conflicts of interest among panel members producing clinical practice guidelines in Canada and United States: Cross sectional study. BMJ, 343, d5621.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. 39.
    Paul, C., Nicholls, R., Priest, P., & McGee, R. (2008). Making policy decisions about population screening for breast cancer: The role of citizens’ deliberation. Health Policy, 85(3), 314–320.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. 41.
    Pickles, K., Carter, S. M., Rychetnik, L., & Entwistle, V. A. (2016). Doctors’ perspectives on PSA testing illuminate established differences in prostate cancer screening rates between Australia and the UK: A qualitative study. BMJ Open, 6(12), e011932.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pickles, K., Carter, S. M., Rychetnik, L., McCaffery, K., & Entwistle, V. (2016). General practitioners’ experiences of, and responses to, uncertainty in prostate cancer screening: Insights from a qualitative study. PLoS ONE, 11(4), e0153299.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Putnam, H. (2002). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Raffle, A., & Gray, M. (2007). Screening: Evidence and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Raz, J. (2011). From normativity to responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rogers, W. A. (2004). Evidence based medicine and justice: A framework for looking at the impact of EBM upon vulnerable or disadvantaged groups. Journal of Medical Ethics, 30(2), 141.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rychetnik, L., Doust, J., Thomas, R., Gardiner, R., MacKenzie, G., & Glasziou, P. (2014). A Community Jury on PSA screening: What do well-informed men want the government to do about prostate cancer screening—A qualitative analysis. BMJ Open, 4(4), e004682.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sayer, A. (2011). Why things matter to people: Social science, values and ethical life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Thompson, D. F. (2008). Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 497–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wedgwood, R. (2007). The nature of normativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.
  52. 52.
    Williams, J. H., Carter, S. M., & Rychetnik, L. (2014). ‘Organised’ cervical screening 45 years on: How consistent are organised screening practices? European Journal of Cancer, 50(17), 3029–3038.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 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. 54.
    Wilson, J. M. G., & Jungner, G. (1968). Principles and practice of screening for disease. Geneva: World Health Organisation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sydney Health EthicsThe University of SydneyCamperdownAustralia

Personalised recommendations