Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34991583›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Governance tensions in the healthcare sector: a contrasting case study in France.

Laurent Mériade, Corinne Rochette

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Laurent MériadeUniversity Clermont Auvergne, IAE Clermont Auvergne, CleRMa, Research Chair "Santé et Territoires", 11 Boulevard Charles de Gaulle, 63 000, Clermont-Ferrand, France. laurent.meriade@uca.fr.
Corinne RochetteUniversity Clermont Auvergne, IAE Clermont Auvergne, CleRMa, Research Chair "Santé et Territoires", 11 Boulevard Charles de Gaulle, 63 000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPolitical and managerial reforms affect the health sector by translating into governance tensions. As identified in the public management literature, these tensions come from the diffusion of management principles and practices from the business world. These tensions manifest at four levels: institutional, organisational, managerial and instrumental. The aim of this research is to understand how these tensions are expressed in healthcare organisations of different status.

methodsWe conduct a contrasting case study exploring the cases of two French healthcare organisations, one private for-profit (clinic) and one public not-for-profit (cancer treatment centre). Our analyses are mainly based on the content analysis of 32 semi-structured interviews conducted with staff (nurses, doctors, management and administrative staff) of these two organisations.

resultsOur results show that these tensions can be distinguished into three categories (tensions on professional values, standards and practices) which are expressed differently depending on the type of healthcare organisation and its main management characteristics.

conclusionsUnexpectedly, in the for-profit organisation, the most intense tensions concern professional standards, whereas they concern professional practices in the not-for-profit organisation. These analyses can help guide policy makers and healthcare managers to better integrate these tensions into their political and managerial decisions.

Indexed as

Health Care SectorPhysiciansDelivery of Health CareFranceHealth FacilitiesHumansContrasting studyGovernance tensionsHealthcare organisation

Identifiers

PMID34991583
PMCPMC8739355

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.