Research protocol: a realist synthesis of contestability in community-based mental health markets

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Jo Durham (1)
  Amara Bains (2)
  
  1. Faculty of Medicine & Biomedical Sciences ; The University of Queensland ; School of Public Health ; Herston ; Brisbane ; Queensland ; 4006 ; Australia
  2. Queensland Alliance for Mental Health ; 1/78 Logan Road ; Woolloongabba ; Brisbane ; Queensland ; 4102 ; Australia
  
• 关键词：Realist synthesis ; Realist review ; Contestable markets ; Contestability ; Community ; based organisations ; Mental health ; Community mental health
• 刊名：Systematic Reviews
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：December 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：4
• 期：1
• 全文大小：375 KB
• 参考文献：1. Davidson, B (2011) Contestability in human services markets. J Aust Polit Econ 68: pp. 213-39
  2. Grace, C, Fletcher, K, Martin, SJ, Bottrill, I (2007) Making and managing markets: contestability, competition and improvement in local government. Audit Commission, London
  3. Preker, AS (2000) 鈥楳ake or buy鈥?decisions in the production of health care goods and services: new insights from institutional economics and organizational theory. Bull World Health Organ 78: pp. 779-90
  4. Esposito, L, Perez, FM (2014) Neoliberalism and the commodification of mental health. Humanit Soc 38: pp. 414-42 CrossRef
  5. Timmermans, S, Almeling, R (2009) Objectification, standardization, and commodification in health care: a conceptual readjustment. Soc Sci Med 69: pp. 21-7 CrossRef
  6. Walsh, A (2011) The commodification of the public service of water: a normative perspective. Public Reason 3: pp. 90-106
  7. Deber, RB (2002) Delivering health services: public, not-for-profit, or private?. Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada.
  8. Sturgess, GL (2012) Diversity and contestability in the public service economy. nswbusinesschamber, North Sydney
  9. Bloom, G, Standing, H, Lucas, H, Bhuiya, A, Oladepo, O, Peters, DH (2011) Making health markets work better for poor people: the case of informal providers. Health Policy Plan 26: pp. i45-52 CrossRef
  10. Tschumi, P, Hagan, H (2008) A synthesis of the making markets work for the poor (M4P) approach. UK Department for International Development (DFID) and Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), London and Berne
  11. Ghosh, BN (2008) Rich doctors and poor patients: market failure and health care systems in developing countries. J Contemp Asia 38: pp. 259-76 CrossRef
  12. Pawson, R (2002) Evidence-based policy: the promise of 鈥淩ealist Synthesis鈥? Evaluation 8: pp. 340-58 CrossRef
  13. Hayami, Y, Godo, Y (2005) Development economics. Oxford Univerisity Press, Oxford CrossRef
  14. Gubb, J, Meller-Herbert, O (2009) Markets in health care: the theory behind the policy. CIVITAS: Institute for the Study of Civil Society, London
  15. Mwachofi, A, Al-Assaf, AF (2011) Health care market deviations from the ideal market. SQU Med J 11: pp. 328-37
  16. Glouberman S, Zimmerman B. Complicated and complex systems? What would sucessful reform of medicare look like? Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, vol. Discussion Paper 8. 2002.
  17. Gunderson, LH, Holling, CS (2002) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, D.C. Island University Press, USA
  18. Cilliers, P (1998) Complexity and postmodernism. Understanding complex systems. Routledge, London
  19. Holland, J (1998) Emergence: from chaos to order. Oxford University Press, Oxford
  20. Pawson, R (2013) The science of evaluation: a realist manifesto. Sage, London
  21. Brown, K, Ryan, N, Parker, R (2000) New modes of service delivery in the public sector: commercialising government services. Int J Public Sect Manage 13: pp. 206-21 CrossRef
  22. McDonald, C, Marston, G (2002) Patterns of governance: the curious case of non-profit community services in Australia. Soc Pol Admin 36: pp. 376 CrossRef
  23. Pawson, R (2006) Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. Sage, London
  24. Pawson, R, Greenhalgh, T, Harvey, G, Walshe, K (2004) Realist synthesis: an introduction. In: Working Paper Series, vol. RMP Methods Paper 2/2004. ESRC Research Methods Programme, University of Manchester, Manchester
  25. Pawson, R, Greenhalgh, T, Harvey, G, Walshe, K (2005) Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Pol 10: pp. 21-34 CrossRef
  26. Robert, E, Ridde, V, Marchal, B, Fournier, P (2012) Protocol: a realist review of user fee exemption policies for health services in Africa. BMJ Open 2: pp. e000706 CrossRef
  27. Best, A, Greenhalgh, T, Lewis, S, Saul, JE, Carroll, S, Blitz, J (2012) Large-system transformation in health care: a realist review. Milbank Q 90: pp. 421-56 CrossRef
  28. Wong, G, Greenhalgh, T, Pawson, R (2010) Internet-based medical education: a realist review of what works, for whom and in what circumstances. BMC Med Educ 10: pp. 12 CrossRef
  29. Jagosh, J, Pluye, P, Macaulay, A, Salsberg, J, Henderson, J, Sirett, E (2011) Assessing the outcomes of participatory research: protocol for identifying, selecting, appraising and synthesizing the literature for realist review. Implementation Sci 6: pp. 24 CrossRef
  30. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Pawson R. Development of methodological guidance, publication standards and training materials for realist and meta-narrative reviews: the RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses - Evolving Standards) project. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2014;2(30): doi:10.3310/hsdr02300.
  31. Pawson, R, Tilley, N (1997) Realistic evaluation. Sage Publications, London
  32. Wong, G, Greenhalgh, T, Westhorp, G, Buckingham, J, Pawson, R (2013) RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med 11: pp. 21 CrossRef
  33. Mertens, DM (2010) Transformative research and evaluation. The Guilford Press, New York
  34. Mark, MM, Julnes, GT (2004) The mechanisms and outcomes of evaluation influence. Evaluation 10: pp. 35-57 CrossRef
  35. Brennan, N, Bryce, M, Pearson, M, Wong, G, Cooper, C, Archer, J (2014) Understanding how appraisal of doctors produces its effects: a realist review protocol. BMJ Open 4: pp. e005466 CrossRef
  36. Pluye, P, Gagnon, M-P, Griffiths, F, Johnson-Lafleur, J (2009) A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in Mixed Studies Reviews. Int J Nurs Stud 46: pp. 529-46 CrossRef
  37. Pace R, Pluye P, Bartlett G, Macaulay AC. Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review. Int J Nurs Stud;49(1):47鈥?3.
  38. Rohrbasser, A, Mickan, S, Harris, J (2013) Exploring why quality circles work in primary health care: a realist review protocol. Syst Rev 2: pp. 110 CrossRef
  39. Saul JE, Willis CD, Bitz J, Best A. A time-responsive tool for informing policy making: rapid realist review. Implementation Science. 2013;8(103): doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-103.
  
• 刊物主题：Medicine/Public Health, general; Biomedicine general; Statistics for Life Sciences, Medicine, Health Sciences;
• 出版者：BioMed Central
• ISSN：2046-4053

文摘

Background In most developed nations, there has been a shift from public services to a marketisation of public goods and services - representing a significant reform process aiming to transform the way in which community-based human services, such as health, are delivered and consumed. For services, this means developing the capacity to adapt and innovate in response to changing circumstances to achieve quality. The availability of rigorous research to demonstrate whether a market approach and contestability, in particular, is a coherent reform process is largely absent. Contestability operates on the premise that better procurement processes allow more providers to enter the market and compete for contracts. This is expected to create stimulus for greater efficiencies, innovation and improved service delivery to consumers. There is limited understanding, however, about how community-based providers morph and re-configure in response to the opportunities posed by contestability. This study focuses on the effect of a contestability policy on the community-managed mental health sector. Methods/design A realist review will be undertaken to understand how and why the introduction of contestability into a previously incontestable market influences the ways in which community-based mental health providers respond to contestability. The review will investigate those circumstances that shape organisational response and generate outcomes through activating mechanisms. An early scoping has helped to formulate the initial program theory. A realist synthesis will be undertaken to identify relevant journal articles and grey literature. Data will be extracted in relation to the emerging contextual factors, mechanisms and outcomes and their configurations. The analysis will seek patterns and regularities in these configurations across the extracted data and will focus on addressing our theory-based questions. Discussion Increasingly, community-based mental health markets are moving to contestability models. Rigorous research is needed to understand how such markets work and in what contexts. The knowledge gained from this study in community-based mental health will provide valuable lessons in how contestability works, in what circumstances and who benefits when. The results of the proposed research will be useful to policy-makers and may be applicable in other contexts beyond the community-based mental health sector. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42015016808