Published in

Emerald, Journal of Health Organization and Management, 5(29), p. 582-594, 2015

DOI: 10.1108/jhom-12-2014-0202

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

User involvement in assisted reproductive technologies: England and Portugal

Journal article published in 2015 by Catarina Samorinha ORCID, Mateusz Lichon, Susana Silva, Mike Dent
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to compare user involvement in the case of assisted reproductive technologies in England and Portugal through the concepts of voice, choice and co-production, assessing the implications for user empowerment. Design/methodology/approach – This qualitative study draws primarily on policy review and uses exploratory semi-structured interviews with key informants as a way of illustrating points. Data on the following themes was compared: voice (users’ representativeness on licensing bodies and channels of communication between users and doctors); choice (funding and accessibility criteria; choice of fertility centres, doctors and level of care); and co-production (criteria through which users actively engage with health professionals in planning the treatment). Findings – Inter- and intra-healthcare systems variations between the two countries on choice and co-production were identified. Differences between funding and accessibility, regions, public and private sectors and attitudes towards doctor-patient relationship (paternalistic/partnership) were the key issues. Although consumer choice and indicators of co-production are evident in treatment pathways in both countries, user empowerment is not. This is limited by inequalities in accessibility criteria, dependence on doctors’ individual perspectives and lack of genuine and formal hearing of citizens’ voice. Originality/value – Enhancing users’ involvement claims for individual and organizational cultures reflecting user-centred values. Effective ways to incorporate users’ knowledge in shared decision making and co-design are needed to empower patients and to improve the delivery of care.