Recently adopted health care practices and policies describe themselves as “patient-centered care.” The meaning of the term, however, remains contested and obscure. This paper offers a typology of “patient-centered care” models that aims to contribute to greater clarity about, continuing discussion of, and further advances in patient-centered care. The paper imposes an original analytic framework on extensive material covering mostly US health care and health policy topics over several decades. It finds that four models of patient-centered care emphasize: patients versus (...) their parts; patients versus providers; patients/providers/states versus “the system”; and patients and providers as persons. Each type is distinguishable along three dimensions: epistemological orientations, practical accommodations, and policy tools. Based on this analysis, the paper recommends that four questions be asked of any proposal that claims to provide patient-centered care: Is this care a means to an end or an end in itself? Are patients here subjects or objects? Are patients here individuals or aggregates? How do we know what patients want and need? The typology reveals that models are neither entirely compatible nor entirely incompatible and may be usefully combined in certain practices and policies. In other instances, internal contradictions may jeopardize the realization of coherent patient-centered care. (shrink)

Evidence-based practice (EBP), a derivative of evidence-based medicine (EBM), is ascendant in the United States’ mental health system; the findings of randomized controlled trials and other experimental research are widely considered authoritative in mental health practice and policy. The concept of recovery from mental illness is similarly pervasive in mental health programming and advocacy, and it emphasizes consumer expertise and self-determination. What is the relationship between these two powerful and potentially incompatible forces for mental health reform?This paper identifies four attempts, (...) in the mental health literature, to delineate the role of “evidence” in recovery. One is the strong version of evidence-based practice—an applied science model—and three others address weaknesses in the first by limiting the authority of probabilistic findings. The paper also offers a fifth version, based on the concept of communicative accountability, which is derived from Habermas’ work on communicative action. The fifth version responds to the other four and emphasizes learning, disclosure and respect in clinical and other helping relationships. (shrink)

Poor quality medical care is sometimes attributed to physicians’ unwillingness to act on evidence about what works best. Evidence-based performance standards (EBPSs) are one response to this problem, and they are increasingly employed by health care regulators and payers. Evidence in this instance is judged according to the precepts of evidence-based medicine (EBM); it is probabilistic, and the randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the gold standard. This means that EBPSs suffer all the infirmities of EBM generally—well rehearsed problems with the (...) external validity of research findings as well as the inferential leap from study results in the aggregate to individual patient care. These theoretical weaknesses promise to have a practical impact on the care of patients. To avoid this, EBPSs should be understood as guidelines indicative of average effectiveness rather than standards to be applied in every case. (shrink)

Consumer-operated services organizations (COSOs) are independent, non-profit organizations that provide peer support and other non-clinical services to seriously mentally ill people. Mental health consumers provide many of these services and make up at least a majority of the organization’s leadership. Although the dominant conception of the COSO is as an adjunct to clinical care in the public mental health system, this paper reconceives the organization as a civic association and thereby a locus of citizenship. Drawing on empirical research on COSOs (...) in one state and the citizenship and civic democracy literatures, COSOs are analyzed here as membership organizations with democratic norms and strong ties to local communities. The suggestion is made that by embracing and enhancing their status as civic associations, COSOs may advance the goals of the social movement that spawned them and avoid predictable obstacles to further growth and development. (shrink)