Premium
Questioning “choice”: A multinational metasynthesis of research on directly funded home‐care programs for older people
Author(s) -
FitzGerald Murphy Maggie,
Kelly Christine
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
health and social care in the community
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.984
H-Index - 68
eISSN - 1365-2524
pISSN - 0966-0410
DOI - 10.1111/hsc.12646
Subject(s) - writ , psychological intervention , normative , flexibility (engineering) , public relations , value (mathematics) , nursing , health care , multinational corporation , psychology , medicine , political science , economics , law , management , machine learning , computer science
In many developed contexts, home‐care services have been overhauled with the intent of increasing control and flexibility for those using social and health services. This change is associated with providing funds directly to individuals, and sometimes their families and supports, to arrange at home‐care assistance with the activities of daily living. Directly funded home‐care programs, or “direct funding” (DF), are not value‐neutral policy interventions, but complex and politicised tools for the enactment of care in contemporary times. In this qualitative metasynthesis, we consider 47 research articles published between 2009 and 2017 that explore various DF programs for older persons in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States to identify core concepts in the literature. We find that choice emerges as a central concern. We then assess the literature to explore the questions: How does the existing literature conceptualise choice, and the mechanisms through which choice is enhanced, in DF programs for older persons? How is choice, and the benefit of choice to older service users, understood in relevant studies? We argue that the concept of “choice” manifests as a normative goal with presumed benefits among the studies reviewed. Particularly when discussing DF for older people, however, it is essential to consider which mechanisms improve care outcomes, rather than focusing on which mechanisms increase choice writ large. In the case of DF, increased choice comes with increased legal responsibilities and often administrative tasks that many older people and their supports find burdensome. Furthermore, there is no evidence that choice over all elements of one's services is the mechanism that improves care experiences. We conclude by presenting alternative models of understanding care emerging from feminist and other critical scholarship to consider if we are, perhaps, asking the wrong questions about why DF is so often preferred over conventional home‐care delivery.