IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v61y2005i8p1733-1740.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The medicine user--Lost in translation?: Analysis of the official political debate prior to the deregulation of the Danish medicine distribution system

Author

Listed:
  • Noerreslet, Mikkel
  • Larsen, Jakob B.
  • Traulsen, Janine M.

Abstract

This paper presents results from a qualitative analysis of official documents dealing with the deregulation of the Danish medicine distribution system, 2001. In an attempt to clarify how consumerism within health care is manifested in policy, this study explores how central actors in the political process explicitly referred to the needs, interests and problems of the users of medicine. The results show that explicit references to the users of medicine by central actors in the political process were limited. Based on this we argue that in this case, although the debate centred on liberal ideas it seems as if chief values of classic liberalism were lost in the process of translating a political idea into political practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Noerreslet, Mikkel & Larsen, Jakob B. & Traulsen, Janine M., 2005. "The medicine user--Lost in translation?: Analysis of the official political debate prior to the deregulation of the Danish medicine distribution system," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(8), pages 1733-1740, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:61:y:2005:i:8:p:1733-1740
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(05)00153-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Boote, Jonathan & Telford, Rosemary & Cooper, Cindy, 2002. "Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 213-236, August.
    2. Morgall, Janine Marie & Almarsdóttir, Anna Birna, 1999. "No struggle, no strength: how pharmacists lost their monopoly," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1247-1258, May.
    3. Salter, Brian, 2003. "Patients and doctors: reformulating the UK health policy community?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(5), pages 927-936, September.
    4. Williams, Simon J. & Calnan, Michael, 1996. "The 'limits' of medicalization?: Modern medicine and the lay populace in 'late' modernity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 42(12), pages 1609-1620, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kurko, Terhi & Silvast, Antti & Wahlroos, Hannes & Pietilä, Kirsi & Airaksinen, Marja, 2012. "Is pharmaceutical policy evidence-informed? A case of the deregulation process of nicotine replacement therapy products in Finland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 246-255.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bukola Mary Ibitoye & Bernie Garrett & Manon Ranger & Jennifer Stinson, 2023. "Conducting Patient-Oriented Research in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(1), pages 19-29, January.
    2. Baggott, Rob & Jones, Kathryn, 2014. "The voluntary sector and health policy: The role of national level health consumer and patients' organisations in the UK," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 202-209.
    3. Weisz, George & Knaapen, Loes, 2009. "Diagnosing and treating premenstrual syndrome in five western nations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1498-1505, April.
    4. Tessa Brannan & Peter John & Gerry Stoker, 2006. "Active Citizenship and Effective Public Services and Programmes: How Can We Know What Really Works?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 43(5-6), pages 993-1008, May.
    5. O'Donnell, Maire & Entwistle, Vikki, 2004. "Consumer involvement in decisions about what health-related research is funded," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 281-290, December.
    6. Pivik, Jayne & Rode, Elisabeth & Ward, Christopher, 2004. "A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment in Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 253-268, August.
    7. Lopes, Edilene & Carter, Drew & Street, Jackie, 2015. "Power relations and contrasting conceptions of evidence in patient-involvement processes used to inform health funding decisions in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 84-91.
    8. Imke Schilling & Ansgar Gerhardus, 2017. "Methods for Involving Older People in Health Research—A Review of the Literature," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-20, November.
    9. Andreassen, Hege K. & Dyb, Kari & May, Carl R. & Pope, Catherine J. & Warth, Line L., 2018. "Digitized patient–provider interaction: How does it matter? A qualitative meta-synthesis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 36-44.
    10. Anell, Anders, 2005. "Deregulating the pharmacy market: the case of Iceland and Norway," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 9-17, December.
    11. Ahmed Rashid & Victoria Thomas & Toni Shaw & Gillian Leng, 2017. "Patient and Public Involvement in the Development of Healthcare Guidance: An Overview of Current Methods and Future Challenges," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(3), pages 277-282, June.
    12. Eileen Green & Frances Griffiths & Di Thompson, 2006. "‘Are My Bones Normal Doctor?’ the Role of Technology in Understanding and Communicating Health Risks for Midlife Women," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 11(4), pages 1-16, December.
    13. Erol, Maral, 2011. "Melting bones: The social construction of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Turkey," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(10), pages 1490-1497.
    14. Sandy Oliver & David Armes & Gill Gyte, 2009. "Public Involvement in Setting a National Research Agenda," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(3), pages 179-190, September.
    15. Heather J. Bray & Jennifer Stone & Lillith Litchfield & Kara L. Britt & John L. Hopper & Wendy V. Ingman, 2022. "Together Alone: Going Online during COVID-19 Is Changing Scientific Conferences," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, February.
    16. Camille Adamiec, 2018. "The supply strategies of health food eaters," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 99(1), pages 77-96, June.
    17. Iedema, Roderick Aren Michael & Jorm, Christine & Long, Debbi & Braithwaite, Jeffrey & Travaglia, Jo & Westbrook, Mary, 2006. "Turning the medical gaze in upon itself: Root cause analysis and the investigation of clinical error," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(7), pages 1605-1615, April.
    18. Ann Marie Crosse & Margaret M. Barry & Mary Jo Lavelle & Jane Sixsmith, 2021. "Bridging Knowledge Systems: A Community-Participatory Approach to EcoHealth," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-16, November.
    19. Caron-Flinterman, J. Francisca & Broerse, Jacqueline E.W. & Bunders, Joske F.G., 2005. "The experiential knowledge of patients: a new resource for biomedical research?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(11), pages 2575-2584, June.
    20. Vogler, Sabine & Habimana, Katharina & Arts, Danielle, 2014. "Does deregulation in community pharmacy impact accessibility of medicines, quality of pharmacy services and costs? Evidence from nine European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 311-327.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:61:y:2005:i:8:p:1733-1740. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.