Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30714817›Full record

ArticleAnthropology & medicine2019

Experiences of integrated care: reflections on tensions of size, scale and perspective between ethnography and evaluation.

Gemma Hughes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Anthropology & medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Gemma Hughesa Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences , University of Oxford , Oxford , UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2930-1125

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An in-depth case study of integrated health and social care provides the empirical basis for this exploration of tensions between ethnography and evaluation. The case study, developed from a two year period of fieldwork, is based on ethnographic data of individuals' experiences of living with multiple long-term conditions, their experiences of integrated care, and integrated care commissioning practices. Narrative and phenomenological analysis show how temporal aspects of ethnographic fieldwork contribute to producing knowledge of patients' experiences. However, tensions emerge when attempting to bring learning from these experiences into discussions about evaluations of services. Data generated from fieldwork are seen as both too 'big', in terms of quantity of details, and too 'small', in terms of generalisability. Scale is also of concern, as tensions between ethnography and evaluation play out in questions of relevance. Ethnography foregrounds embodied, day-to-day lived experience, bringing the minutiae of daily life into sharp focus whereas evaluators need a wider angle to foreground larger objects of interest; organisations, budgets, services. A further source of tension between ethnography and evaluation emerges in defining interventions as distinct from context, when the conceptual boundary required to distinguish the shape of the intervention within a social world blurs and dissolves under the close gaze of an immersed ethnographer, problematizing attempts to inform causation. Concerns are raised that without greater dialogue about the nature of knowledge produced by patients' experiences, these experiences are at risk of being marginalised and de-centred.

Indexed as

Anthropology, CulturalAnthropology, MedicalDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedEnglandHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMultiple Chronic ConditionsPatient ParticipationQualitative ResearchChronic conditionsethnographyevaluationintegrated carenarrativephenomenologytemporality

Identifiers

PMID30714817
PMCPMC6607042

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.