Search results

The healthcare sector is experiencing a major paradigm shift toward a people-centered approach. The key issue with transitioning to a people-centered approach is a lack of understanding of the ever-increasing role of technology in blended human-technology healthcare interactions and the impacts on healthcare actors' well-being. The purpose of the paper is to identify the key mechanisms and influencing factors through which blended service realities affect engaged actors' well-being in a healthcare context.

This conceptual paper takes a human-centric perspective and a value co-creation lens and uses theory synthesis and adaptation to investigate blended human-technology service realities in healthcare services.

The authors conceptualize three blended human-technology service realities – human-dominant, balanced and technology-dominant – and identify two key mechanisms – shared control and emotional-social and cognitive complexity – and three influencing factors – meaningful human-technology experiences, agency and DART (dialogue, access, risk, transparency) – that affect the well-being outcome of engaged actors in these blended human-technology service realities.

Managerially, the framework provides a useful tool for the design and management of blended human-technology realities. The paper explains how healthcare services should pay attention to management and interventions of different services realities and their impact on engaged actors. Blended human-technology reality examples – telehealth, virtual reality (VR) and service robots in healthcare – are used to support and contextualize the study’s conceptual work. A future research agenda is provided.

This study contributes to service literature by developing a new conceptual framework that underpins the mechanisms and factors that influence the relationships between blended human-technology service realities and engaged actors' well-being.

In Spain, three parallel processes have taken place during the last 20 years: decentralisation, a health reform and a mental health reform. These processes have produced an extremely complex situation in support and care for people with mental retardation. The decentralisation process was not accompanied by a clear definition of the co‐ordination mechanisms among local authorities, and as a result many different health and social care systems have emerged at different times. This makes the description of the current care organisation difficult. An important characteristic of the Spanish system is the major role of NGOs in care and policy‐making and planning in this area. A shift from institutional to community care has begun for both psychiatric patients and people with mental retardation, but compared with neighbouring countries and published standards, the provision of intermediate services and non‐hospital residential care is very low, and the situation is worst for people with mental retardation and psychiatric problems.

The debate as to whether intellectual disability (ID) should be conceptualized as a health condition or as a disability has intensified as the revision of World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is being finalized. Defining ID as a health condition is central to retaining it in ICD, with significant implications for health policy and access to health services. The purpose of this paper is to include some reflections on the consensus document produced by the first WHO Working Group on the Classification of MR (WHO WG-MR) and on the process that was followed to realize it. The consensus report was the basis for the development of official recommendations sent to the WHO Advisory Group for ICD-11.

A mixed qualitative approach was followed in a series of meetings leading to the final consensus report submitted to the WHO Advisory group. These recommendations combined prior expert knowledge with available evidence; a nominal approach was followed throughout with face-to-face conferences.

The WG recommended a synonym set (“synset”) ontological approach to the conceptualisation of this health condition underlying a clinical rationale for its diagnosis. It proposed replacing MR with Intellectual Developmental Disorders (IDD) in ICD-11, defined as “a group of developmental conditions characterized by a significant impairment of cognitive functions, which are associated with limitations of learning, adaptive behaviour and skills”. The WG further advised that IDD be included under the parent category of neurodevelopmental disorders, that current distinctions (mild, moderate, severe and profound) be continued as severity qualifiers, and that problem behaviours removed from its core classification structure and instead described as associated features.

Within the ID/IDD synset two different names combine distinct aspects under a single construct that describes its clinical as well as social, educational and policy utilities. The single construct incorporates IDD as a clinical meta-syndrome, and ID as its functioning and disability counterpart. IDD and ID are not synonymous or mirror concepts as they have different scientific, social and policy applications. New diagnostic criteria for IDD should be based on a developmental approach, which accounts for the complex causal factors known to impact the acquisition of specific cognitive abilities and adaptive behaviours. The paper focuses on a new clinical framework for the diagnosis of IDD that also includes and complements the existing social, educational and policy components inherent in ID.

Recent international experiences of community inclusion have produced a major change in residential care for people with intellectual disability (ID). Assignment and outcome assessment through new person‐centred measures are raising increasing interest; however, the information on quality of life and accommodation is still limited. This paper aims to provide an overview of the application of quality of life models and the size of the provision of different living arrangements.

A systematic mapping of the literature of the last decade was followed by an expert guided review of the available evidence.

QoL outcomes measures of living arrangements in people with ID show conceptual and methodological challenges. The following key topics were identified: individual level: issues related to health status, behavioural problems and other personal factors (ageing, choice and empowerment); family and peers; local level: accommodation, architecture and urbanization, and economic aspects (deprivation and costs); macro level: social participation (community inclusion). The residential solutions that are currently considered of highest efficiency are small apartments in the community and “cluster centers”.

The level of quality of life is very relevant in the assessment of living arrangements in people with ID although its assessment still shows significant limitations. Some accommodation typologies seem more effective than others. New conceptual models of inclusive residential care support the convenience of a wide range of accommodation alternatives that may fit the individual needs of a highly heterogeneous population group. A unique residential alternative, albeit optimal from a community care perspective, may not be adequate for all persons with ID.