ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2018
Valuing Healthcare Improvement: Implicit Norms, Explicit Normativity, and Human Agency.
Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A normativity mapping review on end-of-life care in long-term care institutions by authors from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2025Review
- The Promise of Artificial Intelligence in Digestive Healthcare and the Bioethics Challenges It Presents.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- Using a Deliberative Poll on breast cancer screening to assess and improve the decision quality of laypeople.PloS one · 2021Article
- Managing ethical uncertainty: implicit normativity and the sociology of ethics.Sociology of health & illness · 2020Article
- The ethical, legal and social implications of using artificial intelligence systems in breast cancer care.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2020Article
- What does 'quality' add? Towards an ethics of healthcare improvement.Journal of medical ethics · 2020Article
- Defining What is Good: Pluralism and Healthcare Quality.Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal · 2019Article
- Harveian Oration 2018: Improving quality and safety in healthcare .Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2019Article
- Ethical Reasoning During a Pandemic: Results of a Five Country European Study.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29058204What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.