Comparing medicine and management: methodological issues

Abstract

BackgroundIn the study of medicine and management, there is a strong interest in cross-country comparison. Across healthcare systems in industrialised countries, New Public Management has provided a similar reform template, but new governing arrangements exhibit significant national variations. The comparative perspective also offers a leverage to overcome the resistance focus of earlier studies. Comparison raises two overall questions: in what similar and different ways are relations between medicine and management changing across industrialised countries? Why is change occurring in different ways? The questions reflect exploration and explanation as the two basic rationales for comparison.MethodsThe aim was to provide a critical discussion of different approaches to comparing medicine and management across countries. The analysis was based on a narrative review of relevant studies from several bodies of literature.Results and discussionThe majority of studies exploring medicine and management adopt macro level approaches to comparison. Studies draw on a range of notions, including area specific ideal types of professionalism, professionalism as countervailing powers and governmentality. There are much fewer studies exploring relations between medicine and management at the meso level. Analyses treat comparison as a two-dimensional exercise looking across both countries and levels. The majority of studies draws on institutional explanations. These are variations of the path dependency argument and studies include both sector specific and broader political and administrative institutions. There is an emerging body of process-based explanations which connect macro level institutions to organisations and which promote more non-linear comparisons.ConclusionThe lack of meso level comparisons drawing on process explanations is problematic. Empirically, we need to know more about how relations between medicine and management are different across countries. Theoretically, we need to better understand how we can transpose analytical insights from institutional explanations at macro level to studies that are multi-level and also include the meso level of organisations. Methodologically, we need to address the challenges arising from more non-linear approaches to comparison, especially how to organise close international research collaboration over an extended period of time.

Transparency in Healthcare Reporting: The Case of External Contractors and Consultants in New Zealand’s Healthcare System

“…Further research could probe such barriers and how ECCs and their client agencies seek to overcome them along with longer-term impacts of ECC work. There has been a debate around the resistance towards NPM practices from the corporate sector in healthcare organisations, [25][26][27][28] and investigating the perspective of ECCs might improve understanding of this debate. Our findings also have implications for other health systems.…”

Commentary: A Scoping Review of Professionalism in Neurosurgery

“…17,[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] With that said, it is important to acknowledge the challenges to the teaching and practice of professionalism in medicine that have been raised over the past 2 decades. [37][38][39][40][41][42] Most recently, alongside society at large, all of medicine has been charged with explicitly integrating principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Notwithstanding the social and economic benefits that inhere to the adoption of DEI, this is a moral challenge.…”