How Different Quality Paradigms Undermine a Shared Value Base for Integrated Care: The Need for Collective Reflexivity

Everard Van Kemenade; Marlou de Kuiper; Marjolijn Booij; Mirella Minkman

doi:10.5334/ijic.5935

How Different Quality Paradigms Undermine a Shared Value Base for Integrated Care: The Need for Collective Reflexivity

International Journal of Integrated Care

Volume 22 (2022): Issue 1

By: Everard Van Kemenade , Marlou de Kuiper, Marjolijn Booij and Mirella Minkman

Open Access

|Jan 2022

Abstract

In the development process of integrated care many impeding factors occur. Our premise is, that many of these barriers are related to the differences in values or perspectives. This article aims to clarify what an important challenge is for the further development of integrated care and for integrated care research. Professionals and managers in integrated care need to cope with and embrace uncertainty. However, that requires collective reflexivity. Collective reflexivity is a means to investigate the values of the partners interacting to co-create integrated care and to remove the roadblocks on the way.

References

Tsasis P, Evans JM, Owen S. Reframing the challenges to Integrated Care: a complex adaptive systems perspective. International Journal of Integrated Care. 2012; 12(5): None. DOI: 10.5334/ijic.843
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Van der Vlegel-Brouwer W. Integrated healthcare for chronically ill. Reflections on the gap between science and practice and how to bridge the gap. International Journal of Integrated Care. 2013; 13: 1–7. DOI: 10.5334/ijic.1079
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ling T, Brereton L, Conklin A, Newboud J, Roland M. Barriers and facilitators to integrating care: experiences from the English Integrated Care Pilots. International Journal of Integrated Care. 12(24). DOI: 10.5334/ijic.982
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Auschra C. Barriers to the Integration of Care in Inter-Organisational Settings: A Literature Review. International Journal of Integrated Care. 2018; 18(1): 5. DOI: 10.5334/ijic.3068
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Goodwin N. Taking integrated care forward: the need for shared values. Int J Integr Care. 2013 Apr–Jun; 13: e026. Published online 2013 Jun 24. DOI: 10.5334/ijic.1180
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zonneveld N, Driessen N, Stüssgen RAJ, Minkman MMN. Values of integrated care: a systematic review. Int J Integr Care; 2018. DOI: 10.5334/ijic.4172
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hitlin S, Piliavin JA. Values: reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review of Sociology; 2004. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110640
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zonneveld N, Raab J, Minkman MMN. Towards a values framework for integrated health services: an international Delphi study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020; 20: 224. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-020-5008-y
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Minkman MMN. Values and Principles of Integrated Care. International Journal of Integrated Care. 2016; 16(1): 2. pp. 1–3. DOI: 10.5334/ijic.2458
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Van Kemenade EA, Hardjono TW. “Twenty-first century Total Quality Management: the Emergence Paradigm”. The TQM Journal. 2018; 31(2): 150–158. DOI: 10.1108/TQM-04-2018-0045
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Van Kemenade EA, Van der Vlegel-Brouwer W, Van der Vlegel M. Exploring the quality paradigms in integrated care: the need for emergence and reflection, accepted for publication in the International Journal for Integrated Care; 2021. DOI: 10.5334/ijic.5594
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schön D. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books; 1983. ISBN 0–465–06874–X (hbk); ISBN 0–465–06878–2 (pbk).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Popa F, Guillermin M, Dedeurwaerdere T. A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: From complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures. 2015; 65: 45–56, available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260428576 (accessed 25 august 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2014.02.002
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds.), The handbook of qualitative research 1065–1122, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Beck U, Giddens A, Lash S. Reflexive modernization. Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. 1994; Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tanaka MTD, Nicholson D, Farish M. Beyond reflection. In: Transformative Inquiry. 2013; Available from http://www.transformativeinquiry.ca/TIbook/c6/c6/c6s2.html [Accessed 5 September 2016].
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
West M. Reflexivity, revolution and innovation in work teams In: Beyerlein MM, Johnson DA, Beyerein ST (eds), Product Development teams. 2000; 5: 1–29. Stamford: JAIpress.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rieu A-M. Fukushima: the challenge of complexity. Collective reflexivity, adaptive knowledge, political innovation, Springer. Encyclopedia of complexity and systems science; 2014. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-27737-5_621-1
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.5935 | Journal eISSN: 1568-4156

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Submitted on: Feb 25, 2021

Accepted on: Jan 11, 2022

Published on: Jan 21, 2022

Published by: Ubiquity Press

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

Keywords:

quality paradigms,

complexity,

collective reflexivity,

integrated care

© 2022 Everard Van Kemenade, Marlou de Kuiper, Marjolijn Booij, Mirella Minkman, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 22 (2022): Issue 1