IntroductionInsights into effective policy strategies for improved coordination of care is needed. In this study we describe and compare the policy strategies chosen in Denmark and Sweden, and discuss them in relation to interorganisational network theory.Policy practiceThe policy initiatives to improve collaboration between primary and secondary healthcare in Denmark and Sweden include legislation and agreements aiming at clarifying areas of responsibility and defining requirements, creation of links across organisational boarders. In Denmark many initiatives have been centrally induced, while development of local solutions is more prominent in Sweden. Many Danish initiatives target the administrative level, while in Sweden initiatives are also directed at the operational level. In both countries economic incentives for collaboration are weak or lacking, and use of sanctions as a regulatory mean is limited.Discussion and conclusionDespite a variety of policy initiatives, lacking or poorly developed structures to support implementation function as barriers for coordination. The two cases illustrate that even in two relatively coherent health systems, with regional management of both the hospital and general practice sector, there are issues to resolve in regard to administrative and operational coordination. The interorganisational network literature can provide useful tools and concepts for interpreting such issues.

For years, attempts at ensuring the social sustainability of digital solutions have focused on ensuring that they are perceived as helpful and easy to use. A smooth and seamless work experience has been the goal to strive for. Based on document analysis and interviews with 15 stakeholders, we trace the setting up of a data infrastructure in Danish General Practice that had achieved just this goal – only to end in a scandal and subsequent loss of public support. The ease of data access made it possible for data to be extracted, exchanged and used by new actors and for new purposes – without those producing the data fully realizing the expansion of the infrastructure. We suggest that the case has wider relevance for a still more data-intensive healthcare sector and a growing data economy: when those who produce the data are not made aware of new uses of data, it makes it more difficult to resolve potential conflicts along the way. In the Danish case, conflicting views on legitimate data use led to the collapse of the infrastructure. Therefore, while seamlessness may be a solution to the old problem of a poor fit between user and technology, this celebrated virtue may also involve new problems relating to social instability. As digital solutions tend to be integrated still more seamlessly in still more of our activities, we need to develop political mechanisms to define and protect the rights and obligations of both data suppliers and users in order to ensure the long-term sustainability of digital infrastructures.

Highlights Studies of attitudes towards reuse of health data mainly from the UK. Studies show lack of awareness of current usages of health data among people living in the EU. Studies report positive attitudes towards the sharing of health data. Concerns about commercial use of health data is expressed in the studies. Attitudes towards informed consent are inconsistent.

In research ethics regulation, health care and research are depicted as serving distinct goals, and policies are in place to prevent what is seen as patients' misconceived understanding of research as health care. On the basis of ethnographic research in four Danish hospitals in conjunction with a cardiovascular drug trial in patients with chronic disease, we argue that the objectives of health care and research often merge in mutually constitutive practices. We build on observations of trial activities, interviews with physician-investigators, research nurses, patient-participants and trial sponsors and a survey of the patient-participants. We found an organization of clinical drug trials allowing extraordinary care relationships to form, which makes trial participation attractive for patients and allows information to flow more freely. However, the research-care intermingling generates moral concerns for those involved. We conceptualize these concerns as a productive moral friction resulting from research staff caring too much for patients. We identify four situations in which friction arises: when care-giving comes to replace specialist contact, when caring for individuals appears unfair for the collective, when care motives may be doubted and when patients invent their own ways of helping staff in order to reciprocate their care. We conclude that the presentation of the research-care tension as an ethical dilemma is misleading and even part of the problem that must be dealt with by those involved.

: Performance-based management (PBM) has become a dominant form of governance in health care and there is a need for careful assessment of its function and effects. This article contains a cross-disciplinary literature synthesis of current studies of PBM. Literature was retrieved by database searches and categorized according to analytical differences and similarities concerning (1) purpose and (2) governance mechanism of PBM. The literature could be grouped into three approaches to the study of PBM, which we termed: the 'functionalist', the 'interpretive' and the 'post-modern' perspective. In the functionalist perspective, PBM is perceived as a management tool aimed at improving health care services by means of market-based mechanisms. In the interpretive perspective, the adoption of PBM is understood as consequence of institutional and individual agents striving for public legitimacy. In the post-modern perspective, PBM is analysed as a form of governance, which has become so ingrained in Western culture that health care professionals internalize and understand their own behaviour and goals according to the values expressed in these governance systems. The recognition of differences in analytical perspectives allows appreciation of otherwise implicit assumptions and potential implications of PBM. Reflections on such differences are important to ensure vigilant appropriation of shifting management tools in health quality governance.

How do digital tools for datafication interact with contemporary ideas about what counts as knowledge about work? Based on a study of the thoroughly digitalized and data-intensive Danish healthcare sector, we argue that as digital datafication creates new forms of inspection and control, it also reconfigures perceptions of work throughout the healthcare system, and thereby potentially erodes goal orientation and the room for professional judgement. Although policy papers justify the accumulation of data with the aim of making decisions more evidence-based and rational, we now hear clinical staff and data analysts complaining about a 'yoke of Kafkaesque idiocy' and 'meaningless' data practices. When is something seen as 'meaningless work'? Through which dynamics does such work emerge? And what are the implications of such work?

No abstract

No abstract