Cargando…

Comparing medicine and management: methodological issues

BACKGROUND: In the study of medicine and management, there is a strong interest in cross-country comparison. Across healthcare systems in industrialised countries, New Public Management has provided a similar reform template, but new governing arrangements exhibit significant national variations. Th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Burau, V.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4896242/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27230265
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1390-x
_version_ 1782435994533888000
author Burau, V.
author_facet Burau, V.
author_sort Burau, V.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In the study of medicine and management, there is a strong interest in cross-country comparison. Across healthcare systems in industrialised countries, New Public Management has provided a similar reform template, but new governing arrangements exhibit significant national variations. The comparative perspective also offers a leverage to overcome the resistance focus of earlier studies. Comparison raises two overall questions: in what similar and different ways are relations between medicine and management changing across industrialised countries? Why is change occurring in different ways? The questions reflect exploration and explanation as the two basic rationales for comparison. METHODS: The aim was to provide a critical discussion of different approaches to comparing medicine and management across countries. The analysis was based on a narrative review of relevant studies from several bodies of literature. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The majority of studies exploring medicine and management adopt macro level approaches to comparison. Studies draw on a range of notions, including area specific ideal types of professionalism, professionalism as countervailing powers and governmentality. There are much fewer studies exploring relations between medicine and management at the meso level. Analyses treat comparison as a two-dimensional exercise looking across both countries and levels. The majority of studies draws on institutional explanations. These are variations of the path dependency argument and studies include both sector specific and broader political and administrative institutions. There is an emerging body of process-based explanations which connect macro level institutions to organisations and which promote more non-linear comparisons. CONCLUSION: The lack of meso level comparisons drawing on process explanations is problematic. Empirically, we need to know more about how relations between medicine and management are different across countries. Theoretically, we need to better understand how we can transpose analytical insights from institutional explanations at macro level to studies that are multi-level and also include the meso level of organisations. Methodologically, we need to address the challenges arising from more non-linear approaches to comparison, especially how to organise close international research collaboration over an extended period of time.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4896242
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48962422016-06-10 Comparing medicine and management: methodological issues Burau, V. BMC Health Serv Res Debate BACKGROUND: In the study of medicine and management, there is a strong interest in cross-country comparison. Across healthcare systems in industrialised countries, New Public Management has provided a similar reform template, but new governing arrangements exhibit significant national variations. The comparative perspective also offers a leverage to overcome the resistance focus of earlier studies. Comparison raises two overall questions: in what similar and different ways are relations between medicine and management changing across industrialised countries? Why is change occurring in different ways? The questions reflect exploration and explanation as the two basic rationales for comparison. METHODS: The aim was to provide a critical discussion of different approaches to comparing medicine and management across countries. The analysis was based on a narrative review of relevant studies from several bodies of literature. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The majority of studies exploring medicine and management adopt macro level approaches to comparison. Studies draw on a range of notions, including area specific ideal types of professionalism, professionalism as countervailing powers and governmentality. There are much fewer studies exploring relations between medicine and management at the meso level. Analyses treat comparison as a two-dimensional exercise looking across both countries and levels. The majority of studies draws on institutional explanations. These are variations of the path dependency argument and studies include both sector specific and broader political and administrative institutions. There is an emerging body of process-based explanations which connect macro level institutions to organisations and which promote more non-linear comparisons. CONCLUSION: The lack of meso level comparisons drawing on process explanations is problematic. Empirically, we need to know more about how relations between medicine and management are different across countries. Theoretically, we need to better understand how we can transpose analytical insights from institutional explanations at macro level to studies that are multi-level and also include the meso level of organisations. Methodologically, we need to address the challenges arising from more non-linear approaches to comparison, especially how to organise close international research collaboration over an extended period of time. BioMed Central 2016-05-24 /pmc/articles/PMC4896242/ /pubmed/27230265 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1390-x Text en © Burau. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Debate
Burau, V.
Comparing medicine and management: methodological issues
title Comparing medicine and management: methodological issues
title_full Comparing medicine and management: methodological issues
title_fullStr Comparing medicine and management: methodological issues
title_full_unstemmed Comparing medicine and management: methodological issues
title_short Comparing medicine and management: methodological issues
title_sort comparing medicine and management: methodological issues
topic Debate
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4896242/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27230265
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1390-x
work_keys_str_mv AT burauv comparingmedicineandmanagementmethodologicalissues