Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T07:01:28.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Scope of Possibilities for User Influence in Norwegian Municipal Care Services

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2020

JAN ANDERSEN Open the ORCID record for JAN ANDERSEN [Opens in a new window]
JAN ANDERSEN*
Affiliation:
Department of Social Sciences and Guidance, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Box 400, N-2418 Elverum, Norway, email: jan.andersen@inn.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The importance of service-user participation has been growing in the care services, but what possibilities do service users have to influence these services? This article analyses how structural factors have an impact on the scope of possibilities for user influence in care services, especially with respect to how established structures and frameworks determine users’ opportunities to influence both the allocation and the provision of services. A study of five Norwegian municipalities where managers at different levels and within different areas of the services have been interviewed forms the basis of the empirical material. In the managers’ general opinion, over time there has been a stronger individual adjustment of the services and stronger user influence over both the allocation and the provision of services. However, if we look more closely at the service-delivery process, several structural factors limiting the scope of possibilities for user influence become apparent. These factors are discussed in light of different user typologies.

Keywords

user influencecare servicesuser typologies
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , October 2020 , pp. 810 - 828
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andreassen, T. A. (2018), ‘From Democratic Consultation to User-employment: Shifting Institutional Embedding of Citizen Involvement in Health and Social Care’, Journal of Social Policy, 47, 1, 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askheim, O. P., Christensen, K., Fluge, S., and Guldvik, I. (2017), ‘User participation in the Norwegian Welfare Context: an Analysis of Policy Discourses’, Journal of Social Policy, 46, 3, 583–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bambra, C. (2005), ‘Cash Versus Services: ‘Worlds of Welfare’ and the Decommodification of Cash Benefits and Health Care Services’, Journal of Social Policy, 34, 3, 195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgan, J-K. (2013), ‘50 år med offentlig eldreomsorg’ [Fifty years of public eldercare], in Ramm, J. (Ed.), Eldres bruk av helse- og omsorgstjenester, Statistiske analyser 137, Oslo: Statistisk sentralbyrå, 49–54.Google Scholar
Brodkin, E. Z. (2010), ‘Human Service Organizations and the Politics of Practice’, in Hasenfeld, Y. (Ed.), Human Services as Complex Organizations, Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Christensen, K. and Nilssen, E. (2006), Omsorg for de annerledes svake [Care for the differently weak], Oslo: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Christensen, K. and Pilling, D. (2019), ‘User Participation Policies in Norway and England – the Case of Older People and Social Care’, Journal of Social Policy, 48, 1, 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dent, M. and Pahor, M. (2015), ‘Patient involvement in Europe – a comparative framework’, Journal of Health Organization and Management, 29, 5, 546–555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fledderus, J., Brandsen, T. and Honingh, M. (2014), ‘Restoring Trust Through the Co-Production of Public Services: A theoretical elaboration’, Public Management Review, 16, 3, 424–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forvaltningsloven. Lov om behandlingsmåten i forvaltningssaker 10. februar 1967 [The Public Administration Act].Google Scholar
Fotaki, M. (2011), ‘Towards developing new partnerships in public services: Users as consumers, citizens and/or co-producers in health and social care in England and Sweden’, Public Administration, 89, 3, 933–955.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanssen, H., Humerfelt, K., Kjellevold, A., Norheim, A. and Sommerseth, R. (2010), ‘Faglig skjønn i utøvelse av profesjonelt helse- og sosialfaglig arbeid’ [Professional discretion in the practice of health- and social work], in Hanssen, H. (Ed.), Faglig skjønn og brukermedvirkning, Bergen: Fagbokforlaget, 21–49.Google Scholar
Helsedirektoratet (2016), Veileder for saksbehandling. Tjenester etter helse- og omsorgstjenesteloven §§ 3-2 første ledd nr. 6, 3-6 og 3-8 [Guide to case management: services according to the Health and Care Services Act], Veileder IS-2442.Google Scholar
Hirschman, A.O. (1970), Exit, voice, and loyalty, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hood, C. (1991), ‘A public management for all seasons?’, Public Administration, 69, Spring, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingstad, K. (2010), ‘Arbeidsforhold ved norske sykehjem – idealer og realiteter’ [Working conditions in Norwegian nursing homes – ideals and realities], Vård i Norden, 30, 2, 14–17.Google Scholar
Kautto, M., Fritzell, J., Hvinden, B., Kvist, J. and Uusitalo, H. (Eds.), (2001), Nordic Welfare States in the European Context, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kjelvik, J. and Mundal, A. (2013), Utgifter til eldres helse og omsorg [Expenditures for health and care services to older people], in Ramm, J. (Ed.), Eldres bruk av helse- og omsorgstjenester, Statistiske analyser 137, Oslo: Statistisk sentralbyrå, 39–48.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, H. (2009), ‘What’s in a Name: “Client”, “Patient”, “Customer”, “Consumer”, “Expert by Experience”, “Service User” – What’s Next?’, British Journal of Social Work, 39, 1101–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, M. K. and Vorsanger, S. (2007), ‘Street-level Bureaucrats and the Implementation of Public Policy’, in Peters, B. G. and Pierre, J. (eds.) The Handbook of Public Administration, London: Sage Publications, 153–163.Google Scholar
Needham, C. and Carr, S. (2009), Co-production: an emerging evidence base for adult social care transformation. Research Briefing 31, London: Social Care Institute for Excellence.Google Scholar
Newman, J. and Vidler, E. (2006), ‘Discriminating Customers, Responsible Patients, Empowered Users: Consumerism and the Modernisation of Health Care’, Journal of Social Policy, 35, 2, 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NOU 2016: 17, På lik linje. Åtte løft for å realisere grunnleggende rettigheter for personer med utviklingshemming [Official Norwegian Report 2016: 17, On the same footing: Eight efforts to realise the fundamental rights of persons with intellectual disabilities].Google Scholar
Osborne, S. P. (Ed.) (2010), The New Public Governance?, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otnes, B. (2013), ‘Familieomsorg – fortsatt viktig’ [Family care – still important], in Ramm, J. (Ed.), Eldres bruk av helse- og omsorgstjenester, Statistiske analyser 137, Oslo: Statistisk sentralbyrå, 85–91.Google Scholar
Pasient- og brukerrettighetsloven. Lov om pasient- og brukerrettigheter 2. juli 1999 nr. 63 [The Patients’ and Users’ Rights Act].Google Scholar
Pierre, J. and Peters, B. G. (2000), Governance, Politics and the State, London: MacMillan Press.Google Scholar
Rapley, T. (2016), ‘Some Pragmatics of Qualitative Data Analysis’, in Silverman, D. (Ed.), Qualitative Research, London: Sage Publications, 331–345.Google Scholar
Scott, W. R. (2003), Organizations. Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, Fifth Edition, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Tranvik, T. and Fimreite, A. L. (2006), ‘Reform failure: The processes of devolution and centralisation in Norway’, Local Government Studies, 32, 1, 89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tummers, L. and Bekkers, V. (2014), ‘Policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy, and the importance of discretion’, Public Management Review, 16, 4, 527–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vabø, M. and Szebehely, M. (2012), ‘A caring state for all older people?’, in Anttonen, A., Häikiö, L. and Stefánsson, K. (Eds.), Welfare State, Universalism and Diversity, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 121–143.Google Scholar
Vabø, M., Christensen, K., Jacobsen, F. F. and Trætteberg, H. D. (2013), ‘Marketisation in Norwegian eldercare: preconditions, trends and resistance’, in Meagher, G. and Szebehely, M. (Eds.), Marketisation in Nordic eldercare: a research report on legislation, oversight, extent and consequences, Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Whitaker, G. P. (1980), ‘Coproduction: Citizen Participation in Service Delivery’, Public Administration Review, May/June, 240–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, S. (2016), ‘Analysing Focus Group Data’, in Silverman, D. (Ed.), Qualitative Research, London: Sage Publications, 83–98.Google Scholar
Wistow, G. and Barnes, M. (1993), ‘User Involvement in Community Care: Origins, Purposes and Applications’, Public Administration, 71, 3, 279–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar