| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Britten, Nicky, et al.
(author)
-
Elaboration of the Gothenburg model of person-centred care
- 2017
-
In: Health Expectations. - : Wiley. - 1369-6513 .- 1369-7625. ; 20:3, s. 407-418
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background Person-centred care (PCC) is increasingly advocated asa new way of delivering health care, but there is little evidence that itis widely practised. The University of Gothenburg Centre for Person-Centred Care (GPCC) was set up in 2010 to develop and implementperson-centred care in clinical practice on the basis of three routines.These routines are based on eliciting the patient’s narrative to initiatea partnership; working the partnership to achieve commonly agreedgoals; and using documentation to safeguard the partnership andrecord the person’s narrative and shared goals.Objective In this paper, we aimed to explore professionals’ under-standing of PCC routines as they implement the GPCC model in arange of different settings.Methods We conducted a qualitative study and interviewed 18 clini-cian-researchers from five health-care professions who were workingin seven diverse GPCC projects.Results Interviewees’ accounts of PCC emphasized the ways inwhich persons are seen as different from patients; the varia bleemphasis placed on the person’s goals; and the role of the person’sown resources in building partnerships.Conclusion This study illustrates what is needed for health-care pro-fessionals to implement PCC in everyday practice: the recognition ofthe person is as important as the specific practical routines. Intervie-wees described the need to change the clinical mindset and to developthe ways of integrating people’s narratives with clinical practice.
|
|
| 3. |
-
Ethical and Methodological Dilemmas in Social Science Interventions - Careful Engagements in Healthcare, Museums, Design and Beyond
- 2024
-
Editorial collection (other academic/artistic)abstract
- How researchers engage with their field and the consequences of different forms of engagement has been a long-running discussion within the social sciences and humanities. While some researchers argue that engaging and getting too close to the field of study can compromise ‘objectivity’ or ‘neutrality’, others warn that maintaining too much of a distance prevents the researcher from understanding and/or making suggestions to improve problematic or unethical conditions. This edited volume elaborates and expands on this discussion by developing an understanding of careful engagements as a generative mode of knowledge production. In one way or another, the chapters all discuss researchers’ footwork, ambitions, and tools for engaging carefully, as well as the frictions and problems that emerge.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Juhila, Kirsi, et al.
(author)
-
Observing and Commenting on Clients’ Home Environments in Mobile Support Home Visit Interactions: Institutional Gaze, Normalization and Face-work
- 2022
-
In: Housing, Theory and Society. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1403-6096 .- 1651-2278. ; 39:1, s. 82-97
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The study contributes to discursive and interactional housing and home studies by analysing home visit conversations with clients who need support with their housing and living in the community. It focuses on the ways in which professionals comment on clients’ home environments. The data, which consist of 20 audio-recorded home visits in Mobile Support directed at mental health and substance abuse rehabilitees, are analysed by applying the Foucauldian concepts of practices, normalization and inspecting gaze, Goffman’s idea on face-work and the ethnomethodologically oriented research on the meanings of spaces in interactions. Five ways of using inspecting gaze are identified: pointing out, criticizing, giving advice, displaying concern and complimenting. The study provides a critical reflective basis for assessing the “soft” use of interactional power in clients’ homes at a time when the provision of services in private home spaces is on the increase.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Lindén, Lisa, 1985, et al.
(author)
-
Editorial: Care in STS
- 2021
-
In: Nordic Journal of Science and Technology studies. - 1894-4647. ; 9:1, s. 3-12
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)abstract
- During the last 10 years the Science and Technology Studies (STS) community has witnessed a flourishing, intense and multifaceted engagement around “care”. While care had been addressed already before in Joanna Latimer’s The conduct of care: Understanding nursing practice (Latimer, 2000) , and in Jeanette Pols’ Good care: Enacting a complex ideal in long term-psychiatry (Pols, 2004), care seemed to be on everybody’s lips around 2010. Around the same time, the edited volume Care in practice: On tinkering in clinics, homes and farms (Mol et al., 2010) and the article Matters of care in technoscience: Assembling neglected things (Puig de la Bellacasa, 2011) were published. With akin, yet partly diverging, agendas and concerns, these two key publications drastically increased the amount of research that identify with something like an area of “care studies” in STS. This can also be seen in the publication of special issues devoted to care during the last years, notably the much-cited 2015 issue in Social Studies of Science focused on feminist technoscience interventions into the politics and “darker sides” of care (Martin et al., 2015), and the more recent on relationalities and specificities of care in East Asian Science, Technology and Society (Coopmans & McNamara, 2020). Noteworthy is also the special issue on “The politics of policy practices” in The Sociological Review Monograph, where Gill et al. (2017) discuss how policy and care are entangled, and how such entanglements could be enacted more “care-fully”. These publications have spurred rich and generative engagements about ways to attend to the affective, ethico-political and/or material layers of care, within and beyond areas traditionally thought of as related to care (such as healthcare and childcare).
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
