ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2018
It Takes Two to Tango: Customization and Standardization as Colluding Logics in Healthcare Comment on "(Re) Making the Procrustean Bed Standardization and Customization as Competing Logics in Healthcare".
Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Value configurations for balancing standardization and customization in chronic care: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Under what circumstances can immigrant patients and healthcare professionals co-produce health? - an interpretive scoping review.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2020Article
- Why measuring outcomes is important in health care.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2019Article
- Researching the Co-Existence and Continuity of Standardization and Customization in Healthcare: A Response to Recent Commentaries.International journal of health policy and management · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The healthcare context is characterized with new developments, technologies, ideas and expectations that are continually reshaping the frontline of care delivery. Mannion and Exworthy identify two key factors driving this complexity, 'standardization' and 'customization,' and their apparent resulting paradox to be negotiated by healthcare professionals, managers and policy makers. However, while they present a compelling argument an alternative viewpoint exists. An analysis is presented that shows instead of being 'competing' logics in healthcare, standardization and customization are long standing 'colluding' logics. Mannion and Exworthy's call for further sustained work to understand this complex, contested space is endorsed, noting that it is critical to inform future debates and service decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.